The Sun.
London, England, 1857-07-01 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YEsTEnDAy.)

INDIA,
Col. FRENCH asked whether it was true that appli-
cation bad been made by the Hon. East India Company
to tba Government for vessels to carry troops, which.
application had been refused, and a'so whether the Go-
vernment intended to send out troops to India in trans.
ports or in Queen's vessels ?
Sir C. WOOD said that it W 33 not true that such ap•
plication bad been made, and that it was not the inten-
tion to send out troops in Queen's vessels because trans-
ports were more readily fitted out than Queen's ships.

ELECTION PETITIONS.
Mr. WYLD complained of the imputations made
against him in a certain election petition which had
been recently presented and withdrawn, and intimated
his intention of taking the earliest opportunity of remov-
ing those imputations by any means that the law al-
lowed.
.
-

THE BALLOT,
Mr. H. BERKELEY rose to ask leave to introduce

a bill to cause the votes of the Parliamentary electors
of Great Britain and Ireland to be taken by way of bal-
lot. He knew not bow this motion might be met to.

night ; he knew that the noble lord at the head of her
Majesty's Government was absent ; but he knew, like•
wise, that the noble lord had said to many hon. members
—some of whom desired to bring forward measures of
electoral reform—" Wait, for I have a Reform Bill.

Lo, it looms in the distance ! Behold, it is a great Re
form Bill ; and it shall, like Aaron's rod, which devoured

up all other rods, devour all your smaller measures of
Reform." (A laugh.) Hon. members, accordingly, ha

waited for that event. Now, those who advocated the
ballot had not the least objection to wait, but they Lad

an objection to do so without knowing what they were
to wait for. They objected to be treated somewhat
after a nursery fashion—to be told that "they must open
their mouths and shut their eyes, and see what the noble

lord would send them." (Laughter.) Wait they would,

but in order that they might know what they were wait•
ing for, he begged to propose a question to the occupants

of the Treasury Bench. He saw two hon. members op-
posite who were probably the noble lord's locum tenentes
this evening, so he begged to ask them this specific
question—" Is it the intention of her Majesty's Govern-
ment to adopt the ballot as part of the Reform Bill next
session ?" (Hear, hear.) That was a very plain and
straightforward question, and he trusted that he might
have a straightforward answer, without those little

flowers of diplomacy which were generally sprinkled
upon Ministerial replies. If this question were answered
in the affirmative he had nothing to do but to sib down,
and he thought the cheer with which such an announce•
anent would be received would be echoed from every

part of England. If, however, on the contrary, he
was met with a negative, then he had simply to lay
his case in the best form he could before the house. He

now paused for a reply.
(The hon. gentleman paused accordingly, but, as he
remained standing, apparently fearful of losing his right
to cantiuue his speech, no other ,member could address

the house. The Chance.lor of the Exchequer said,—
"If my hon. friend is really serious in asking"—but
then resumed his seat amid cries of ``Order !")
Mr. BERKELEY presumed, after the little prelimi-

nary flourish of the right bon, gentleman, that the an-
swer he had to give could not be plain " Yes," or " No."
He supposed, then, that in default of such an answer he
'oust take it for granted that silence meant dissent. (A.
laugh.) It was not, he presumed, the intention of the
Government to adopt the ball )t in t.ieir Reform Bill,
whatever they might have determined as to the other
questions which had been proposed to them. He thought,
teen, he was perfectly justified in bringing this impor-
tant subject before the house to-night. (Hear.) He
should not upon this occasion urge any arguments in
support of his motion, but he should content himself
with taking the uljections which had been last put upon
record by boo. members, and be should endeavour to
give some reply to them. Nothing could be more beau-
tiful in theory than our electoral system, and nothing
could be more hideous in practice. It was perverted, it
was disorganised, and all that the promoters of the ballot
sought to do was to re-establish it upon a proper basis.
The case appeared to him to be most plain and palpable:
—An elector was appointed to do a simple duty—to
vote as he pleased, freely and indifferently ; but he could
not do that by voting in public, and " Therefore," said
the supporters of this motion, "let him vote in secret."
(Hear.) That would seem to be a very simole test, yet
it was met with the most strenuous opposition, and the
governing body refused to protect people at the polling-
booth from those malign influences which beset them
and which gave so m ny seats to a favoured class in that
house—they would go any length, and would assent to
any measure of reform rather than that. One of the best
writers on the ballot had justly said that—
" The aristocracy or governing classes of this country,
would rather yield universal suffrage, and retain the con-
trol which open voting gives them at elections, than the
most moderate extension of the franchise with the ballot."
He (Mr. Berkeley) believed that to be the case, and he
warned the country to bewa're of that spurious liberality
which would extend the suffrage but refuse the ballot,
because he believed that the alleged desire for an exten-
sion of the suffrage was frequently only a pretence to
get rid of the ballot. He had always maintained that
the ballot was the alpha of all Parliamentary reform—
(hear, hear)—and he asserted that if they would only
give the elector protection at the polling booth they
would soon be able to run through the entire alphabet of
reform down to its omega. Now, he would endeavour
to grapple with and to show the fallacy of the speeches
of some hon. gentlemen on the hustings who had attacked
the ba lot and had at the same time given in their ad-
hesion to au extension of the suffrage. Ile bad before
him an extract from the Times of April last, which con-
tained the report of a speech made by Mr. Disraeli at
Aylesbury. The great talent of the right hoe. gentle-
man, his eloquence, his powers of reasoning, and the high
position which he held in that house must render every
word that he said upon that subject as important as it,
was interesting. (Hear, hear.) Well, Mr. Disraeli
started with this proposition,—" That everybody must
agree that the ballot, without an extension of the suf-
frage, was an impossibility." Now, he (Mr. Berkeley)
was an humble individual in comparison with the right
hon. gentleman, but he most peremptorily denied that
proposition, and he asserted that he was backed and
supported in his denial by some of the first authorities,
both of the past and of the present day. Such, for ex-
ample, had not been the opinion of Lord Durham, who
was in favour of a very great extension of the suffrage ;
and such had not been, and was not now, the opinion
4.f Mr. George Grote, who also supported an extended
franchise. He (Mr. Berkeley) went as far as Lord Due
ham did touching the extension of the franchise. He
believed a very great extension to be necessary, but he
was of opinion that the elector, whatever his fran-
chise might be, had a right to demand of the Legislature
which enjoined upon him the performance of a certain
duty that he should have adequate and full protection
afforded him in the discharge of that duty ; and he con-
tended that they bad no right to impose any duty upon
an individual by law without effectually guarding that
individual in the performance of such duty. (Hear.) He
next came to an equally bold, and, as he thought, equally
incorrect assertion by the right hon. gentleman, " that
the vote by ballot would be an intolerable tyranny over
the non electors." In attempting to refute these falle.-
I cies, which were, of course, admirably put forward by
the right hon. gentleman, all their weak parts being
carefully concealed by most excellent words, it was ne-
cessary that they should look to first principles. Now,
the laws carrying out the intention of what was called
the representative constitution of this country had de-
fined the qualification of an elector, and his qualification
being first defined, his duty was also defined and with
equal clearness—it was to select and to vote for such
candidate as he might think proper without fear of
punishment, without hope of reward. Nobody, there-
fore, had a right to question his vote, or to visit him
with after consequences. He (Mr. Berkeley) was strongly
of opinion that they could not contravene that self-evi-
dent proposition, but if he wished to strengthen himself
in the eyes of the house he would call into court the late
a e l
deliberate
e ra t e
public opinion ?"
aaer. ny)
Sir R. Peel, who said upon this subject—
To whom is the constituent body responsible ? Is
the
of any conceivalsle kind, except
the responsibility to
God, to their own consciences, and to
enlightened
an
responsibility
That was the opinion of the late Sir R. Peel,
add upon it he (Mr. Berkeley) was prepared to take his
(era
stand. Since, then, the elector bad the undoubted pri-
vilege of voting as he might think proper, for what pur-
pose was open voting required ? For what purpose
did they want a record to be kept against every man of
how be voted What were they to gain by it according to
the electoral principles of our constitution ? Was there
any conceivable thing which they could gain by open
voting which was fair, honest, and above board ? Did
open voting afford any test of an elector's having sold hie
vote or of his having been int.midated ? Did it afford
any means of punishing a corrupt elector which secret
voting did not equally confer ? He said that it did not,
for he would undertake to prove that a conviction for
bribery would be as attainable, if it took place, under
secret voting as under open voting. He defined open
voting to be the ratification of a treaty between dis-
honest men ; while secret voting was the prevention of
the ratification of that treaty, because it compelled One
scoundrel to depend upon the word of another. In open
voting the poll-book was the record by which the intic*i-
dater convicted and punished his victims. The knowledge
that that record was kept against the electors induced
thousands of men fully competent to be electors to refuse
to be placed on the register. The knowledge of the ex-
istence of that record compelled thousands of men who
were electors to refuse to go to the poll ; and the know.
ledge of the existence of that record also compelled tens
of thousands of our countrymen to go to the poll there
to falsiry their consciences and to tell a lie, to the great
detrime.it of their country, in the face of their God ; or,
to use perhaps the better phraseology of the brilliantly-
written paper—the Examiner—it compelled the electors
to go to the poll there to tell a lie and to send the inner•
nation of that lie to Parliament. (Laughter.) Mr. Die
raeli told the Buckinghamshire farmers that to allow
the electors to vote in secret—and that he (Mr. Berke-
ley) contended was to vote without intimidation as Is

joined by law—would be intolerable tyranny upon the
non-electore. Now, this was assuming covertly that
which to hon. member, however audacious, dared to
assume openly in that house—namely, that there was a
body of men :n this country under whose control the
electors ought to be. It meant that or nothing. (Hear,
hear.) When it was said that electors would turn tyrants
over the non•electors if this secret voting was given
them, that might be an argument for universal suffrage,
but it was no argument whatever against the ballot. It
was an argument for universal suffrage, because if tho
non electors were to have the power to control the
electors, why make tyrants of them—why not rather
give them the franchise ? He did not think that that
could be got out of. (Hear.) M. Disraeli, of the
manor of Hughenden, in the County of Buckingham,
could vote for whom he pleased ; he was perfectly inde-
pendent of everybody ; but John Brown of High Wy-
combe was not independent enough to go against his I
tyrant. John Brown, therefore, naturally turned to '
Mr. Disraeli and said, " Yoa are a man of great import-
ance in the House of Commons—an ex-Minister and
Privy Councillor ; assist an humble man like me and
free me from my tyrant." "Go away, John Brown,
go away," the right hon. gentleman would say ; " You
will become a tyrant and a bully, and tyrannise over the
tyrant you have, if you were allowed the only remedy
against the grievance of which you complain." (Hear,
and laughter.) John Brown naturally said " Good
Heavens ! what a position to place me iu. lam not an
independent man. You recollect, sir, the time when you
'stood for High Wycombe and told ns that we were suf-
fering under unparalleled tyranny, and were subject to
little knots of tyrants, and now when I bring the facts
,before you you say, John Brown, I shall no longer as-
sist you.'" Tie right hon. gentleman, or any other
gentleman had a right to change his opinion, but he
'could not change facts, and could not help being a wit-
ness as to the terrorism which prevailed, and as to petty
tyrants who existed, and whom he desired to put down.
Consequently, however much the right hon. gentleman
might choose to change his mind, the right hon. gentle-
man was a witness still on the side of thoee who advo-
cated the ballot, and he thought there was no possibility
of the right hon. gentleman showinghow the non-electors
became tyrants by the simple fulfilment of that which
the law enjoined. Now ne found that during the last
Middlesex election a noble friend of his indulged in
what he considered an unconstitutional maxim. He

found that Lord R. Grosvenor said that the electors
ought to be responsible for the discharge of their
duty. To whom, he asked, were the electors to be re-
sponsible but to God, their own consciences, and to
an intelligent deliberate public opinion ? (Hear, from
Lord R. Grosvenor.) He was glad to hear his noble
friend cheer him, and he perceived that his noble friend
had fallen into the delusion which the noble lord the
member for London indulged in. (Hear, and laughter.)
So, then, the noble lord thought that an intelligent, de-
liberate public opinion could only exist under open vot-
ing. He maintained that is could not exist under open
voting, but only under secret voting. As his noble friend
had treated him with that good-natured ironical cheer,
let him ask his noble friend to consider what effect pub•
lie opinion had on the mind of a mars under secret voting,
and what effect it had under open voting. With the bal-
lot the elector could carefully weigh the opinions of pub-
lic men, the merits of great public measures, and the
arguments in the public press, and then, after getting
the best information he could, and deliberating upon it,
be went to the poll and gave a conscientious vote in
secret. Now, take the case of open voting. Under that
system of what use to the 500 dependents of Lord Tills
or That was public opinion ? The press might write by
the yard, public men might talk by the hour ; all that
could make no practical impression on their minds, for
when they went to the poll our great national engine,
the screw, was at work, and they could not vote but as
their landlords commanded ! (Hear.) Take the case of
any set of men—the workmen at the mills, for instance.
Of what we was public opinion to them ? They were not
called on to form their opinions by public opinion, but
. by the wills of their masters, and nothing could be easier
than to give an illustration of this by referring to any
great question of reform. Let them take the abolition of
the corn laws, for instance. How long was that abolition
postponed because the electors dared not carry out public
opinion at the polling-booths ? How long was public opi-
nion set in for the abolition of the corn laws before it was
accorded ? How long did public opinion notoriously wage
war against the corn laws in vain ?—until at length
something very like a great and powerful conspiracy was
called into existence to overcome the duresse put on the
electors ; and that it was which was the cause of the
abolition of the corn laws. Two very eminent men,
acknowledged to be authorities on the question of the
corn laws, Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright, had often de-
clared that if the electors had had the ballot they would
have stood by public opinion, which was with the non-
electors, and the corn laws would have been abolished 30
years before they were. (Hear.) He had DOW attempted
to answer some of the latest arguments against the ballot.
The usual mode of attack had been by guesses and sur-
mises. When gentlemen had nothing practical to offer
in defence of open voting, they had recourse to guesses
and surmises, observing that such and such things would
happen if protective voting were a lopted. But if the
house turned to examples it would see that where the
ballot existed the best results bad followed. Hon. mem-
bers might take "Hansard" and look through it from
one end to the other and they would find no instance in
the speeches against the ballot of the failure of the ballot
wherever it had been established. Who ever heard of the
ballot failing in England? It procured safety for those
who voted under it and preserved the peace, and a choice
was made which was correct and true. He found the
same was the case in other countries. It was so in MI
land. There the ballot acted peculiarly well; and so it del
in Belgium. It might fee said that the priest in Belgium
exercised an influence over the electors. That was an
evil which could not be coped with. It a body of men
submitted their conscience to another body amen that
could not he helped, but so long as men voted according
to their will that was all that could be attempted to be
attained. In Sardinia the ballot was retarded as the
keystone of liberty. Many hon. members—and probably
among them the noble member for the city of London—
might be acquainted with Sig. Valerio, one of the sena-
tors of the Sardinian Chamber of Deputies, who had ex-
pressed his opinion that " without the ballot the Legis-
lature (of Sardinia) would be returned by the aristocracy,
the bishops, and the priests." This country had received
a somewhat useful lesson with regard to the conduct and
equipment of an army in the field from little Sardinia,
and be thought that with respect, to civil Government it
might also learn ti lesson from the absence of intimida-
tion on the part of the priests and aristocracy at the
Sardinian elections. He (11r. Berkeley) would ask the
house to compare the absence of intimidation in Sar-
dinia with the intimidation exercised by the priests
and the aristocracy in this country. In America the
ballot was perfectly successful in all states where due
attention had been paid to the secrecy of the voting. In
all those States where intimidation or corruption had
crept in it was found to be the result of a loose mode
of balloting, but wherever the strict secrecy of the
ballot had been maintained it had been attended with
the best effects. Ha had on former occasions brought
the case of America before the hou3eat such length that
he would nut now have said anything more on the sub-
ject but for a paragraph in the Times which was very
likely to be quoted, as anything which wee supposed to
• teil against the ballot was eagerly sna.ceed at. Tns.t
paragraph appeared under the poinpouc heading—"Ae
Election Contrast." Now, a residence of many years
in America, and a knowledge of the character of the
people of that country, led him to doubt whether this
paragraph had been writ'ea by an American. The
paragraph commenced by assuring its readers that the
• London Times was the proper authority with regard to
the English representative system, and the writer then
proceeded to draw a co,uparison between the mode of
election in England and the mode of election in Ame-
rica, declaring his preference for the English system.
He (Mr. Berkeley) certainly thought, with regard to
the case of America, that, considering the system of
centralisation which prevailed there, the secret com-
mittees, the absence of the candidates, the eheels
within wheels which existed, and the general com-
plexity of the system, the ballot worked infinitely
better in other countries than in the United States.
He might instance Sardinia, and the Canadian and Aus-
traiian colonies of Great Britain. But when he found a

writer in an Atnerican paper thus asserting the supc-

riority of the English patrician system over the Awe-
- ricau system of ballot, he would not believe the
author was an American, for he would evide -itly prefer
a legitimate and anointed King to an elected President,
and there were not 10 men from Maine to Alabama who
would frank such an opinion. One fact was worth any
amount of speculation on a subject of this niture, and
be might therefore inform the house that no State in
America which had originally commenced with the bal-
lot had ever changed it for open voting, while these
States in whiei Open voting was originaly established
had gone over one by one to the system of ballot, with
the exception of two slave States, and one of those
States (Virginia) bad at the last election rendered itself
infamous, for the voters who went to record their votes
openly fur C.l mel Fremont were attacked, hunted, and
obliged to fly for their lives. It appeared that an
. American gentleman of great reepectability, an advocate
-cf New York, Mr. Compton Williams, hat lately visited
this country, and had very kindly given his
ep
touching the Americon system of election to a
society
. with which he. (Mr. Berkeley) was connected, the Bal-
lot Society. At the request of that society Mr. Williams
attended a public meeting at Uaverfordwest, his an.
cestors having been Welshmen, where he expressed
opinions, .some of which he (Mr. Berkeley) begged per-
mission to quote. [The hon. member then read some
lengthy ex racts from the speech of Mr. Williams, who
said that in his own country he had never heard any ex-
pression of hostility to
,the ballot, or of a desire to resort
to such a viva voce system of voting as existed in England.
• In his own State, New York, the only mode of voting
. was by ballot. All the electore were furnished with slips
number of representatives to be
of paper, stating the
elected, and these slips, which were called the " ballot?,"
were either printed or written. It was unnecessary to
make a candidate an enemy by telling him he woull
vote against him, for the ballot afforded protection to the
elector. He (Hr. Williams) expressed his surprise
to find that unsuccessful attempts had been made
in England for twenty-five years to obtain the ballot.
The object sought to be secured in America was that
the elector should rote for himself and not somebody
else for him, and that object was effectually secured
by the ballot. He regretted to say, however, that
intimidation and bribery were not totally unknown in
.America. (Hear.) There were u that country great po-
litical combinations ; there were political captains of tens
and fifties and hundreds, who boasted that they could
—"repel their followers to vote as they pleased ; but those
were mere words, for they had no power to control the
rotes of the electors. The votes were secret, and although
%lectors might give promises, it could not be known
whether those promises were fulfi led or not. It was
itherefore
perfectly useless to extort such promises. He
had heard it said that men might watch the box, and see

how their tenants and employes voted, but he defied
them to do so successfully. It was, for example, exceed-
ini-r,;y important to know how the State of Maine voted,
for that gave the cue to the elections generally ; and last
" fall" the Democrats were determined to expend their
whole strength on that State, with the view to insure the
return of their party. They had also made arrangements
to have the news of the election in the State of Maine
sent by telegraph to New York, and on the receipt of it
50,000 men were ready to form a procession in that city
in honour of the victory ; but when the telegraphic mei-
sage arrived in New Yor it stated that the Republicans
had gained the election in the State of Maine by nearly
two to one against the Democrats, and that result (ilr.
Williams said) was entirely due to the ballot.] He would
now call the mo,t serious attention of the house to her
Majesty's Australian dominions. There the ballot was
ad )pted as the law of the colony of Victoria. It had
been tested there, and the result had been that all the
evils which sprang up under the system of open voting
—intimidation, violence, and corruption—had received
their death-blow. He would crave the permission of
the house just to draw a comparison. Let him lay
before them a sketch of some of the proceedings at our
late general election in England under open voting, and
then a brief sketch of the elections in Australia with
the ballot. Having done that, he would then simply
ask the house to " look on this picture and on that.'
The general election in 1852 was a regular old Whig and
Tory fight ; but the election of 1857, though less of a
party struggle, presented the same appalling features of
the malversation of open voting. First of intimidation,
which he had always said was the great malady of our
electoral system. Look to the counties. There political 1
freedom was a perfect farce. To make this plain he
would refer the house to the mode of registration. They
all knew that in the counties their election agent simply
divided the great mass of the electors into classes, ac-
cording to the political views of the landlords. On the
one side he put A. B. under the class of "yellow," be-
cau.ie he was a tenant of Lord So-and-so, or Squire This-
or-That ; and on the other he placed C. D., under the
category of "pink," because he was a tenant of Lord
T'other-thing. The feelings of the elector were never for
a moment regarded. - He was simply treated in the mat-
-1 ter as the tenant of So-and-so ; and it was well known
that in counties it was thought a want of etiquette
for one landlord to canvass the tenantry of another.
That, in fact, bad led to duels on more than one occa-
sion in the old times. But now, when people were a little
more peaceably disposed, out came the county gentle-
men at an election with a flowing placard addressed to
" the free and, independent electors." "Free" to do
what? Not to vote as they pleased, but "free" to go to
the poll, and " free" to be turned out of their farms if
they did not do the bidding of their landlord. When Sir
11. Ward brought forward this question he cited the case
of an estate which had changed hands three times in a
very few years. It first belonged to a Tory, then to a
Whig, and then to a Tory again ; and at every election
during that time the tenantry upon it invariably voted in
accordance with the politics of the landlord for the time
being. (A. laugh.) Again, in Lanarkshire, during the life
of the late Duke of Hamilton, who was a Whig, his
tenantry there always voted for a Whig, but when the
present duke, who was a Tory, succeeded to the title,
they turned round and voted for the Tory candidate at
every election. (" Hear," and a laugh.) He (Mr, Ber-
keley) had before him a specimen or two of the extent to
which intimidation flourished in the counties. In
the Times of the 20th of April last there appeared
a memorial addressed by the Londonderry tenantry of
the Marquis of Waterford to his lordship in reference
to the then forthcoming election for the county,
together with the reply of the noble marquis, which he
would read to the house. Let the house remember that
the memorialists belonged to a class of gallant men who,
as the late war abundantly proved, were ready to die on
the hill side, and shed the last drop of their blood for
their country. The petitioners say :
" That they are inclined to believe your lordship is
warmly attached to the tenantry on your lordship's estate,
and that you respect their feelings and conscientious con-
victions ; that, acting under that belief, they respectfully
approach your lordship to request yon will be gisciously
pleased to permit them, at the approaching general elec
tion, to record their votes according to the dictates of their
consciences—(a laugh)—and that you will give directions
to your agent and representative here to protect them in
the religious and faithful exercise of their electoral rights.
Several landlords in this county have already done so. This
favour being so reasonable a request on their part, your
tenants do not anticipate a refusal, and have nominated
Messrs., &c., a deputation to wait on your lordship, and
they, as in duty bound, will ever pray,"
(A. laugh.) What was the answer to that communica-
tion ?

" A.shbrookl April 3.

" Sir,—l am directed by the Marquis of Waterford to
acknowledge the receipt of your letter, together with a
memorial from some of his tenants in this county, and to
say that he would wish them to vote for Mr. Clark and
Sir H. Bruce at the coming election. (Laughter.)
" Yours faithfully,

"Rev. N. M. Brown." "V. B. BEAUFORT.
He (Mr. Berkeiey) supposed that if the noble marquis
had not been pleased to be sweetly tempered they would
have had a still rougher reception. (A. laugh.) He would
now, by way of antithesis, present an extract from the
speech of a great landlord in this country, and a mem-
ber of that house, which formed a pleasing contrast to
the document he had just read. Mr. Robartes, in
the course of an address to his constituents at the
last electi n, called on them to reflect on the posi-
tion of a poor but. honest voter who was compelled
to vote against his political convictions ; and he
(Mr. Robartas) declared that, putting himself in the
position of such a wan, if he were asked if he desired to
have the franchise, he would rather be without it if he
was to hold it on the understandingc, that he was to vote
in opposition to his conscience. He further said be
should like to see the ballot to-morrow, because he
should then feel more at liberty to speak to his tenants
on political subject'', and to try to win them over to his
Own convictions. He was afraid to do so now, because
if he spoke strongly there was always an idea that some
unfair means would be used to compel them to vote in
a particular way. He should therefore continue as
before, to support the motion of the hon. member for
Bristol. (Hear.) A more noble specimen of the conduct
of an English gentleman was not to be found. (Hear.)
Tnat man need never fear the ballot. His sentiments
were founded upon the sentiments of one of the finest
characters ever drawn by Steele and Addison—Sir
Roger de Coverley. The old knight said, "I lova to
enjoy my own opinion, and consequently I never con-
strain the opinions of those who depend upon me."
(Hear.) In the Tablet of May 15, under the head of
" Freedom of Election in Ulster," he found a statement
that 20 tenants of the Marquis of Hertford had received
notices to quit on account of their votes at the Lisburn
election. He found in a Woolwich paper a paragraph
having reference to the election preceding the last for
West Kent, in which it was :aid that a clergyman of
the Church of England who resided in Essex, but bad
property in Kent, having intelligence that a tenant was
about to vote for Mr. Martin, despatched to him this
let:er

"I hope in a few days to fix the time for coming down
to receive the rent. (A. laugh.) The object of the present
letter is the West Kent election. I hope you are, like
myself, a good conservative, and will vote for Sir Walter
Riddell at the approaching election. Landlord and tenant
should always vote upon the same side—(laughter)—and if
we proceed to a new lease that will be one of my stipula-
tions."

(Laughter.) The rev. gentleman had strange ideas of the
rights of conscience. The paper stated that the "scrow"
would not work, and that the tenant retained his inde-
pendence. (Hear.) Another instance of intimidation
been the subject of legal proceedings under the Corrupt
Practices Act, in the case of " Queen v. Barnwell" and
that was a failure. The house would do him the jtr,tico
to recollect that he had lifted his voice agamst the Cor-
rupt Practices Act, and that he had branded it as a dis-
graceful specimen of insincerity. It was enacted for the
I)snefit of candidates, and not for the interests of electors.
Toe legal expenses were carefully cut down and the il-
legal expenses were left untouched. The cases which
c )uld be specified were cases of unsuccessful intimidation
and they were few in comparison with those which, be-
ing successful, passed unknown. In South Wiltshire a
noble lord contested the county against the present hon.
member, and he was celebrated by a county poet in he-
roic verse :

" Without a fault, and with lots of tin,
"The best of the three is Lord Henry Thynne."
(Laughter.) He did not know how such a man could
eel to win an election, but Lord Henry Thynne did fail,
and in his parting address attributed his failure to inti•
inidation. At Seuth Northamptonshire Lord Althorp
was charted with intimidation, and he retorted by mak-
ing the same charge against the other side. In Cum-
berland threats were made of publishing the poilbook,
and in Bedfordshire it was actually done in the form of
a newspaper supplement. In West Sussex there was no
opposition-I:seethe return of Lord March and Captain
Wyndham, and both members inveighed against the bal
lot. The gallant captain said that the non-electors had
as much right to know how the electors voted as the
electors had to know how he voted. But the non-elec-
' tors had not to control, to reward, and to punish the
electors, as the electors had to control, to reward, and to
punish their representative. If a member of pariament
voted in secret it destroyed the very eeience of the rephe
sentative principle. He left the gallant captain to recon-
cile his view with that of Mr. Burke, who said, " The
House of Commons never could control the functions of
Government unless the members themselves were con-
trolled by their constituents." Lord March took up the
°id song, and said the ballot was unmanly and un
English. Within a very few weeks both he and his noble
father, the Duke of Richmond, gave a notable example
of the difference between example and
precept. It chanced
that a chief constable had to be elected. In the western
division of Susie' eight out of nine members voted
against the ballot. It was understood that the votes in
that division for the mendable were not to be taken
openly. Everybody
hsiuspapromse;dthatthe Duke of Richmond
would have appeared with the ballot-box of the Conser-
vative Club under
et ennta.n cui neg
at hp ep
ebaarlel
do t ,w
tiht
au
up oonlda
but his grace, to avoid coun-
He deposited the old hat in a cornerhat moata n
and
i un:dg ednei
packaol ut so
of e xu tpe
the dcards i
..
cards. The magistrates put the names of the candidates
on the cards, and deposited the cards in his grace's at.
What was the difference between voting by ballot and
voting in an old hat! Why should the one be called un-
manly, un-English, and cowardly; and the other brave
manly, and British ! He could see no difference between'
the two things. He called both voting by ballot; at all
events, the mode adopted by the Duke of Richmond car-
ried out the principle, if not the letter, of the system of
voting which he wanted the house to sanction by its ap-
pr val. So much, then, for the elections in counties. The
e
committees now sitting upstairs would show the scenes
that were enacted at the laat elections. Those preeious
disclosures the house would have an opportunity of con-
sidering, and he trusted it would lay them to heart. He
had stated that in 1832 Mr. Disraeli spoke of an intoler-
able terrorism as then prevailing. That system produced
a terror of two kinds—in the first place, a terror of ruin,

and in the next a terror of loss of life or mutilation. Of
the latter he had an admirable example before him in the
right hon. gentleman the Vice-President of the Board of
Trade. and he ce
uld not help Raping that it was a very
hard case when co.ndidates were compelled to look for
their only protection against mob violence to the quan-
tity of their brains and the thickness of their skulls. The
broad handkerchief of the Timeswas now waving in the
air still wet with tears for the right hon. gentleman.
That journal not only mourned for him, but actually
embalmed his wounds, in three or four leading articles.
How came it, be asked, that the Times did not look to
the other cases of violence that occurred during the last
elections ? The treatment reeseived by the right hon.
gentleman was bad enough and match to be deprecated,
attention to those
but why did not the Times direct it::
cases of violence that took place in Ireland ! Not a word
was said aboutthem, but the right hon. geritlemansome-
how or other, enjoyed the favour of the gimcl'h and all
its sympathies was reserved for him. He thought that
his noble friend the member for the city of London was
a good deal to blame for the acts of violence and intimi-
dation that disgraced the recent elections. In more than
one part of the country the noble lord had been cited as
a great authority under whom those who committed the
violence had acted. The noble lord had told the people
over and over again that the elective franchise was a
trust. (Hear, hear, from Lord J. Russell.) He very
much doubted the soundness of that proposition, because
if au elector discharged his duty by voting for whom he
pleased without let or hindrance, he defied the noble lord
to show him what the breach of trust was in the reverse
case. But what he wished to say was that the noble lord
was responsible for much of the violence perpetrated 'at
elections. Two or three sessions ago be brought forward
the case of the Cork election, at which the supporters of
a gallant friend of his, Gen. Chatterton, were brutally
used, although he admitted that the two representatives
of Cork were gentlemen of the highest respectability, who
would be the first to set their faces against such violence.
Nevertheless, some disgraceful things were done, and,
according to the evidence, they were instigated by the
priests, who said to the people, " Lord J. Russell tells
you that the elective franchise is a trust ; now, boys, all,
who vote for Chatterton are guilty of a breach of trust.'
It such arguments were addressed to ignorance or ma-
lignity there could be no mistake as to the result, for a
mob was not able to discriminate between what the noble
lord really meant and what they believed him to say.
(Hear.) He held in his hand a polling-book, got up by
a society of non-electors in Rochdale with a view to
exclusive dealing, and a more complete instrument
of tyranny he never saw. The electors were designated
under their various trade or crafts, the supporters of Sir
Alexander Ramsay being distinguished from those of
Mr. Miall, and, although there could be no doubt that
the book had been got up against the former, be was
sure that Mr. Miall would scout the very idea of stleb
publication, for a man more fond of liberty and of free-
dom of voting in elections did not live. (Hear, hear.)
Here, again, the' noble lord the member for the city was
cited as an authority for these shameful and tyrannical
proceedings. "The theory of the present representative
system," said this compilers of the Rochdale polling.-
book, "according to a great constitutional authority—
Lord John Russell—is that 101. householders hold their
votes in trust for the class who do not possess that pro-
perty qualification, as well as in their own right, and
this vindicates the practice of publishing a list of the
voters' names." (Hear, hear.) He would not trouble
the house with any more details regarding the violence
and intimidation perpetrated at the last elections. The
scenes that occurred at Drogheda, at Lisburne, in Gal-
, way, and in other parts of Ireland were perfectly shock-
, ing, and it was very interesting to read the truthful ac-
count 3 given by the reporters of the maiversation of the
franchise, and compare them with the mendacious state-
ments of interested parties. But, instead of dwelling
upon the Irish elections, be would proceed to direct the
attention of the house to the elections which recently
took place in the colony of Victoria. The establishment
of the ballot in Australia was mainly due to Mr. Nichol-
son, and, though opposed by the same arguments as in
this country, the syetem had operated in the most Betio-
' factory manner. The hon. member quoted from the
Australian newspapers paragraphs referring to the re-
' cent elections in that colony, showing that in no case
had there been any violence or disturbance, and stating
that the ballot had imposed a decided and welcome check
on the noisy and turbulent demonstrations which had
hitherto beau inseparable from a contested election. In
addition to the tranquillity with which they had been
conducted these elections had been characterised by great
completeness of polls—a fact which was an answer to
the objection that in this country it was not from terror,
but from apathy, that persons abstained from voting.
Hitherto the Australian elections had exhibited the same
paucity of voters compared with the number of electors
that was to be found in England, but at the last election
the number of voters polled in some of the districts was
within one or two of the whole number upon the regis-
ter. (Hear.) The expenses, too, had been greatly
dimiuished ; and such had been the effect produced that
many of those who were formerly opposed to the ballot
were now to be found in the ranks of its supporters.
Among others, the Attorney-General, who before the
election was particularly hostile to the ballot, had an-
nounced his determination in future to support that mode
of election. (Hear.) Sincerely thanking hon. gentlemen
for the attention which they had given him while be
brought tketn these details, without which he could not
establish his case, he submitted that he bad now proved
to the house by facts that wherever the ballot had been
tried it had been productive of none but the hap-
piest results, and that there was nothing to beset against
it except suppositions, guesses, and calculation that it
would not do in England what it had done elsewhere
under precisely similar circumstances. (Hear.) A. Libe-
ral Government never appeared to him to such disad-
vantage as when it opposed a Liberal measure, and was
forced to seek protection under the gaberdine of Tory-
ism. (Rear.) That was a position iu which he was
sorry to see his hon, friends, and it was matter of great
regret to him that in this matter he stood against his
friends and Ras defeated by them. It was now, how-
ever, practically understood that the ballot was opposed
by the aristocracy and landocracy, because they would
not give up the power over the constituencies which was
given to them by open voting. (Hear.) But why
should not they give up that power ? They lived in a
loyal country—a country in which the aristrocracy was
beloved by the people—(bear, hear)—and a country
which vrt-.3 essentially anti-democratical. Then, why
did they not seek to gain from the love of the people
that which they now compelled by an usurped au.
thority ? (Bear, hear.) Depend upon it they would
stand much batter with the people if they did so. It
was unmanly, and showed moral cowardice to adhere
to the existing state of things, not to trust to the people
in whom they might confide, and rather to compel obe-
dience from their fear than to obtain it from their love.
He had ever seen that it was impossible that any reform
bill should be final unless protected votes were one of its
provisions, and he now entreated the Government, at the
last moment, to adopt the conviction arrived at by their
friend Sidney Smith, whom they had so often quoted,
who wrote the most brilliant pamphlet, but unsound as
it was brilliant, in favour of open voting and against the
ba'lot. What said Sydney Smith, In a recently published
letter, written in reply to a correspondent who had corn-
plimented him upcn his able writing, he said with
regard to the ballot, " But it will come, though I write
never so wisely." He (Mr. Berkeley) told them that it
must and would come—(cbeers)—and that therefore it
was infinitely better that they should give to the people
that which they would at the present moment receive as
a precious boon rather than wait and be compelled to
eurreoder to them that which they would demand as a
rieht. (Cheers.) The hon. gentleman concluded by mov-
ing for leave to introduce a bill to cause the votes of the
Parliamentary electors of Great Britain and Ireland to
be taken by way of ballot.
Sir J. V. SHEL LEY, in seconding the motion, con-
gratulated the friends of the ballot on the prospect of
having the question properly debated on that occasion ' •
last year there had been only one speech on the subject,
and no member of the Government had expressed his
opinion. It was difficult for him (Sir J. Shelley) to say
anything after the speech of his hon. friend, which had
far outshone any of hie former performances, and had en-
tirely disposed of the objection that the ballot was un-
English. Another objection was that it would be ineffec-
tual to stop bribery and corruption. It was hard to say
what would be the result, but nothing could be worse
than the presentstate of things. As long as they had per-
sons bad enough to bribe, there would be found persons
poor enough and weak enough to accept the bribe ; but
the screw now put on was worse than bribery, which pro-
duced one good to a poor man, that itgave him the means
of paying his rent ; but to tell a man that he would lose
his customer was most un-English. (Hear, hear.) He
had the honour of representing one of the largest coned-
tuencies in the kingdom, and he could assure the house
there was no single question on which his constituents
telt so strongly as on the necessity of giving protection
to the electors. There was no doubt that for some cause
or other a very small proportion of the electors recorded
their votes. He had himself gone through a contest, and
he had seen ladies driving about to different shops put-
ting on the screw ; the result of this system was, a
number of most respectable tradesmen made themselves
non-electors in order to avoid the difficulties they would
be placed in. To show how the system acted he would
read to the house a report of a conversation between a
friend of his and a respectable tradesman in Westmin-
ster who had formerly resided in a county town, where
he was known to have been a strong politician, but was
now doing a flourishing trade in London. The hon.
baronet then read the report of the conversation in which
the tradesman in question, who was designated as "Mr.
C.," declared he had not voted at all ; he was afraid to
do so on account of his wife and family. He had never
voted against his conscience, but his conscience told him
he had a wife and family to support. He dared not re
main on the register, and was therefore a non-elector,
and thousands were in the same position in the city of
Westminster. He had voted once before for General
Evans, and had lost three of his best customers in con-
sequence. He (Sir J. Shelley) would not wish to give
the name of this person, but he would have no objection
to mention it privately to any hon. member. The con-
versation was a sufficient proof that many deprived them-
selves of the elective franchise on this account. The
hon. baronet then read an extract from a speech of Mr.
Grote in 1838 on this aspect of the question, and con-
tinued that he believed no person would now stand up in
the house and say that the ballot would not enable a man
to give his vote according to his conscience. He had ob-
tained 1855, the numbers in
.favour of the
last ten years.
ttaoitnael:2asnoa;nalysis of the divisions on this question in the
218 ; tellers, 2 ; pairs, 367-
274,asuAregawienrset—itp_repsreenste,olt6, 6; tellers, 2 ; pairs, 36—total,
2p3o3seTdo orifes. 13 members
Thesegiving a majority of 52,. or 15 more than in
the previous session, but 8 less than in 1853. The majo-
rity wasa, andcointhe Government,
proved
dmtheant
t,lO
Whigs, the
Liberals had nothing to do but Stick together on the ques-
tion. However much they might deplore the fall of the
present Government, yet it came to this, that if they tine
eerely believed that a reform bill was necessary, and, at
t nornf tb

thss same time, believed no reform bill would be success-
ful which did not give protection to the voters, they had
only to stick together, and not rest satisfied unless the
ballot was made a Cabinet question. (Hear.) They might
have a change of government, but it would be only be a
temporary one, and right hon. and hon. gentlemen who
now opposed, would be supporters of ithe ballot. In the
division last year the ayes present wore 113, tellers 2,
pairs 43 ; the noes were, present 153, tellers 2, pairs 43,
making te majority 40. There voted with the majority
27 Liberals and Peelites, of whom 13 were members of
the Government, leaving only 14 Liberal independent
members voting against the motion, and there was only
one Liberal member amongst the pairs. Several mem-
hers of the Government voted in favour of the motion,
including Lord Duncan, Sir B. Hall, Admiral. Berkeley,
Sir A. Cockburn, Sir . Bethel!, Mr. Bouverie, Mr. C.
Villiers, Mr. Horsman, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Massey, and
Mr. Osborne. He believed there would be a majority in
favour of the motion this evening ; he would not, how-
ever, further trespass on the house, but begged to se-
cond the proposition. (Cries of " Divide.")
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
after the direct appeal made to the members of the Go-
vernment, and put in so catechetical aform by the hon. mem-
ber for Bristol, he should be wanting in courtesy to him if
he did not take the earliest opportunity of stating the
views which he had formed on this question. He regretted
to find that these views would not coincide with those en-
tertained generally on either side of the house. Ho was un-
able to adopt the views so clearly stated by the honourable
gentleman who made this motion ; he did not form a very
sanguine estimate of the beneficial results of the ballot ;
but, on the other hand, he did not share the alarm with
which it was regarded by some gentlemen on both sides of
the house. He trusted they would afford him an opportu-
nity of stating as briefly as he could the grounds on which
he had arrived at this conclusion, after the best consider-
ation he could give to a subject so difficult and on which
such discordant opinions were entertained. When a ques-
ti on was first brought under the consideration of that louse
it sometimes happened that the member who introduced it
arranged the arguments in favour of his opinion in a gene-
ral discursive manner, somewhat in the form of an essay,
with a view of introducing the subject to the house, and
showing the arguments on which his proposition rested.
Such was the state of the present question, when it was
first brought under the notice of the house by Mr. Grote;
and all who heard the speeches delivered by him during a
series of years must admit it was impossible that the
arguments could be stated with greater clearness or in
more elegant language. In his hands the question passed
through what might be called the didactic period ; from
him it passed into the hands of the hon. gentleman oppo-
site, and with him it had reached the stage which he would
venture to describe as the humorous, and the hon. gentle-
man had, with great command of facts, great play of
imagination and wit, annually brought it before the house
in a most diverting manner. Having passed through those
two stages, the subject might now fairly be considered to
have reached the third, which he would call the practical
one, and consider whether or not the ballot was adapted
to the wants and circumstances of this country. In order
to arrive at a practical result on this question, the natural
course would be to consult experience as to what effects
the ballot had produced in other countries. If they looked
to the continent they would find a state of things totally
different from this country. (Hear, hear.) It was difficult
to profit by the experience of the continent, as no powerful
state there bad hitherto been able to consolidate a parlia-
mentary government. The only states in which a free con-
stitutional government existed were those of the second
rank. In reference to the operation of the ballot on the
continent he would take the liberty of referring to the
statement made by a distinguished statesman and political
writer who was examined before a committee of the house
in 1837—he meant M. Da Tocqueville, the author of a
work on the Democracy of America and another on the
French Revolution. ge was examined beJore the bribery
committee, and in answer to some questions upon the
' ballot, stated that the object of the secret voting in France
' was to protect the voters against the power of the Govern-
ment. The executive Government was the omnipotent
• being which the voter in France dreaded, against which
he sought the protection of secret voting. That being the
case, the experience of France was of little value in this
country, where there was no overwhelming influence of a
centralised bureaucracy to overawe the voter. Neither
did he think that the example of this institution in some
co!onies, where it had lately been introduced amongst a
new society, could be of much assistance to a country
whose social and political, condition was so different. The
country to which they must look for a lesson in this regard
I was the United States of America, and ho believed he
would not misrepresent the supporters of the ballot if he
said their object was to introduce into England the mode
of voting practised in America. The hon. gentleman said
the working of the system there was perfectly successful,
and held up the practice of the United States as a model
for imitation.

Mr. BERKELEY Was understood to say he held up as
an example the principle, but not the details of the insti•
talon.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had misun-
etas b. r but to
The
t voters
ascertaino motionf
then
Great
theeren
abe
practised
lonfe
the
United
lieamsmtaean, Parliamentary
they should look to the details of the mode of voting now
votes
efßo'rriett,,hine
house was "That leave be given to bring in a bill to cause
and Ireland to be taken by ballot." The motion assumed
that they knew what was the meaning of the word ballot
as applied to elections. There was no mode of ballot known
to our law ; there was no legal meaning attached to the
word ; and to arrive at its meaning they should take it
foTe
cr .orte:
he
etehe
wtneahoi ls
euue.
lbrdje butzcic azoththuoee
htaprinciple
nol
rioienft
vytet hhro
ye:
as it is established in,theUnited States, and where its mode
r.
osapyfarsiwtenecosmerntk.oti ninOg fnoirstmhn travelleriohsti
msfttetus
United States the word ballot' has, in its general accepta-
tion, nothing to do with the word ball,' but means a
piece of paper, with the names of the candidate or candi-
dates written or printed upon it.' In the Southern and
Western States generally the voting is entirely open, and
usually viva voce. At all elections in the ether States the
friends of the different candidates stand round the voting
places, with the written or printed voting papers (called
tickets) in their hands, and as each voter approaches he
takes from the hands of one of the agents of the candidate
or candidates for whom he intends to vote one of these
lists, openly before all the world, and delivers it, folded or
unfolded as the:case may be, to the persons taking the poll.
The tickets are now universally, I believe, printed; and
being printed upon:coluured paper —the colour or some dis-
tinguishing device indicating the p arty to which the candi-
dates belong—the very fact of presenting a paper thus
coloured or larked, though it might be folded up, in itself
at once shows which side the voter takes at the election."
That appeared to be a correct description of the mode of
voting now practised in America, andit entirely agreed with
the information he had always received from American
gentlemen. They neverdescribed the ballot as secret voting,
but as a mode of votingby tickets. The distinction between
the ballot and the mode of voting practised in this country
was that here an authentic register of the votes was kept,
but in America there was no such thing. If a person stood
by the booth he might take a list of those who voted; but
there *was no authentic authorised list. In order that he
might not be accused of referring to doubtfulor partial wit-
nesses, he would next quote some pamphlets published by
the Society for Promoting a Knowledge of the Working of
the Ballot, of which the hon. gentleman was cho.iriaan.
They had published several tracts ; one was called " The
Ballot in America, " and showed the mode of voting in ope-
ration there. It stated in reference to the system adopted
in the state of New York : " Where there is, on the one
hand, no register of electors, and on the other band, a sys-
tem of printed tickets,
.it is perfectly clear that, for some
local reason, the inhabitants of the state are not really de-
sirous to secure secrecy in voting either for themselves or
others. This may be called ballot, but it is not secret vot-
ing." That was the description given of the practice in the
state of New York. This might be called the ballot, but it
was certainly not secret voting. The tract ended with this
summary The result generally may be said to be thus;
that while in the various States above named different
forms of ballot are made of, one great principle has been
kept in view, that of securing to every elector the option
of secrecy with regard to his vote. In short, as has been
well expressed by an eminent statesman of our own coun-
try, in none of these States is any record kept against any
man of the manner in which he votes.' In a country,
where the suffrage is almost universal, and where great
in-
equalities of condition among those
generally prevail, it is not surprising that many should who possess it do not
ap-
pear indiviunally indifferent as to the observance of secrecy
in its exercise. But protectionis afforded by law to all
who feel its want, and choose to avail themselves of it."
That description exactly accorded with what was said by Mr
Tremenheare. It showed that the American practice was
this, that if the voter in America chose to conceal his
vote he had the power of doing so, but that if he did nut
think fit to conceal it he might exhibit it, and that, thei ••
fore, secrecy was confined to those who were desirous of
having it. He wished the house to be in full possession of
that fact, because he thought it was very important with
reference to the practical working of the system. The next
tract to which he wished to direct attention was N o. 5 of
the same series ; it was called " The Teat of Experience
as to the Working of the Ballot in the United states ;"
and he was the more desirous of quoting it because expe-
rience was that to which he was desirous of appealing on
that occasion. The Society for Promoting the lutroduc-
tie' of the Ballot became aware that some important trans-
actions in reference to this subject had taken place in the
state of Massachusetts,
and accordingly, in the month of
April, 1855, the honorary secretary of the society, Mr.
Wickham,
aPdressed a letter to Mr. Walker, who was
then the Secretary of State for Massachusetts, requesting
information with regard to the recent changes of the law
in that state in reference to the ballot. He wished p erti-
cularly to call the attention of the house to this corre-
spondence, and to the facts disclosed in the letters and
documents sent by Mr. Walker. Mr. Walker decrib id
the state of the law on the subject in Massachusetts. The
ballot was, it appeared, already in existence there, and
therefore this state already
possessed that perfect security
against all electoral evils of which his hon. friend had
given such a glowing description. However, it did not
produce all the results which the friends of the ballot in
this country seemed to think inevitable. It seemed that
it was decided by a court of law that a printed vote was a
written vote within the meaning of the constitution.
" This decision," Mr. Walker said, " made a great change
in the character of the ballot. It destroyed a great pert
of its secrecy, for as soon
as the legality of printed vut 39
was admitted, each of the different parties would have
something in the size and appearance of its tickets by
which it could be readily distinguished from those of other
parties. One, for example, would have tickets printed on
yellow paper, another on blue, another on pink, Sec. Often-
times, moreover, such tickets were ornamented with some
pictori▪
al representation, so that a man's vote could be re-
cognised almost as far as the man himself. Hence very
soon after printed votes were introduced complaints began
to be heard from all
parts of the State, especially from
the large commercial and manufacturing towns, that the
secrecy of the ballot was impaired, that intimidation and
coercion Kwere used at the polls, and the independence
of the voter greatly lessened." He then went on
to say that "The evil had now become so great that
many people felt anxious for a change in the mode
of voti▪
ng and various improvements were suggested, but
the great practical difficulty seemed to be"—this, let the
house observe, was the state of Massachusetts, in the year
1810, when vote by ballot was an established institution of
the. State, embodied in the constitution—" the great prac-
tical difficulty seemed to be to get a method which would
be perfectly secret and at the Beale time afford perfect se-
curity against fraud ;" and he added that " the two ob-
jects appeared fora king time incompatible." Therefore
it appeared that at that time Mr. Walker, the Secretary
of State, thought that secret voting and security against
fraud were incompatible, and no means were at that time
known in the United States of reconciling these objects ;
showing, as it seemed to him (the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer) in the most conclusive manner that, according to

the practical view of the United States, secresy was not
an essential part of vote by ballot• Throughout the speech
of his hon. friend it was assumed that secrecy was !.n es-
sential part of vote by ballot. Ho contrasted vote by ballot
with open voting, and he said that open voting was a rati-
fication of a treaty between two dishonest men, irnplyin;
that ballot was a secret mode of voting by which that ra-
tification was frustrated : and therefore the whole of his
argument fell to the ground, if it was shown that secresy
was not an essential part of vote by ballot. Mr. Walker
proceeded with his narrative. After remarking that the
great difficulty was to find a means of reconciling secresy
of voting with security against fraud, he said—" While
thus thinking upon the subject, it suddenly occurred to
me, for I had never heard it suggested, that the true me-
thod was to enclose the ballot in an envelope, and then,
having sealed the same, place it in the ballot-box." Well,
the result of this sudden inspiration to Mr. Walker, was
that a bill was prepared and presented to the Legislature,
but the result was that it was rejected, and the former
mode of voting was continued. " But," ho said, "in the
following year, 1851"—it was not a very ancient history
—" the liberals, consisting of the democrats and free-
soilers united, came into power, and a bill for the bettor
security of the ballot was again introduced into the legisla-
ture, and passed by a handsome majority." Therefore, in
the state of Massachusetts, secret voting was for the first
time established by law in 1851. Mr. Walker sail that
this mode of voting by enclosing the vote in a a sealed en-
velope ocourreci to him for the first time ; thereby showing
that no similar system existed in any other State.
Mr. H. BERKELEY observed that it existed also in the
State of Michigan.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said Mr.
Walker did not mention Michigan when he said that the
thine occurred to himself for the first time. He said—
" The law had now passed and remained in force till 1853,"
that was two years. "In 1853 the conservative party
came again into power, and not daring directly to repeal
the ballot law, it virtually destroyed its efficacy by pro-
viding that any voter might use the envelope or not as be
pleased." Let the house observe that this alteration in
the mode of voting took place under the use of the sealed
envelope ; and it must therefore be supposed that the elec-
tors of Massachusetts were faithfully represented, and that
the views of the majority were carried into effect in the
repeal of secret voting. Mr. Walker said that this altera-
tion emasculated the law, as every man who voted under
the envelope would be presumed and taken to be hostile to
the dominant party. Then he said that soon after the
virtual repeal of the ballot law, further alterations tock
place. The amended constitution was submitted to the
people, containing a clause re-enacting the sealed-envelope
system, but this amendment was rejected by a small ma-
jority,and the people were thrown back again on the existing
law. Be concluded his narrative with this sentence : "A
party was elected, calling itself American ; the legislature
elected by this party is now in session. The restoration
of the Sealed Ballot Law was proposed in the popular
branch, and carried by a good majority, it was, how-
ever, lost in the Senate, the more conservative branch,
by a majority of one vote. So that the law now stands,
that the voter may deposit his vote in a sealed en-
velope, or not, as he may choose." Tais history of
the ballot in the state of Massachusetts showed that
the ballot having been at first practically an open ballot,
so that every person who polled was enab:ed to ex-
hibit his vote if he thought fit to do so, a system of com-
pulsory secresy was afterwards introduced ; that that sys-
tem remained in force about two years, when it was re-
pealed, and so far as appeared from these publications it
had not since been introduced. Therefore, so far as any in-
ference was to be drawn from his hon. friend's publications
the inference was this, that there was now no State of the
wasAwma kri American
su existence.narrativeUnion w h ear
He
de thepina
frs
etyrl sTrteef, mir
tmohf
at th compulsorypraerptol frt orfo mavocto3,iilnnrg...
e
mittee of the Senate and the House of Representatives of
Massachusetts, to which his name was appended. The
committee described the evils of voting in the same sort of
way as his lion, friend had described them in speaking of
this country ; they described them as existing in full
vigour under a system of ballot ; and they then went on
to say that the use of a letter envelope which had within a
few years been introduced into the country had been sug-
gested as a cheap, an efficacious, and an easy remedy for
all the evils complained of He was afraid of wearying the
house by citing too many passages, but at the same time
ho was desirous of placing before them in an authentic
form evidence of the true working of the ballot system in
America. There was nothing to show that there was at
that moment a single State of the American Union in
which a system of compulsory secresy existed in regard to
voting. (Hear.) In the majority of the States undoubtedly
the system of vote by ballot existed, probably it was to be
found in branches of most of the State constitutious, but
the practice of voting by ballot was this, that the voter
placed a ticket in a box, and there was no poll clerk —no
person to receive or record his vote. There was, there-
fore, no complete list of the votes after the election, the
votes being ascertained by counting the number of tickets
deposited at the polling place ; but on the other hand,
every person was at full liberty to exhibit his vote if he
thought fit, and the general practice was, in fact, to exhibit
the votes. Now, in considering what would be the effect of
acceding to the motion of his hon. friend, they must ask
what was the system he recommended. (Hear.) Did he re-
commend the sealed envelope system, or did he recommend
the system of optional secresy ? He adopted the terms used
by the Ballot Society. All hishon. friend's arguments were
founded upon the assumption that the secresy ought to be
compulsory; and yet the whole experience of the United
States was against a system of compulsory secresy. It had
only been tried recently as an experiment, so far as he
knew, in a single state, where it remained in operation only
two years, and it had not been re-established since. It was
clear therefore that the test of experience—to use the lan-
guage
wasgeof clear,
a title-page
hel said,
t e- pae that tlee
th et
tracteto t
of which h e
experiencehad
in h
t referrede
United States was against compulsory secresy, and in favour
of optional secresy. Well, now, let them consider what
would be the effect of an attempt to introduce compulsory
secresy in this country. The whole of their electoral pro-
ceedings were founded on the assumption that the opinions
of the candidate wore avowed, and that he had certain sup-
porters among the voters, who came forward to support,
him on public grounds. His friends perhaps formed a com-
mittee on his behalf, and they appeared in public as the
advocates of the political opinions which he had espoused.
He put forward addresses declaring his opinions ; he can-
vassed the electors on the ground that be held such opinions;
he hoped that they would support him as entertaining si-
milar opinions. The whole conduct and course of an English
election was publicity of opinion on the part of the candi-
date as well as of the electors. (Hear, hear.) No parson in
that house had greater objection to intimidation at elec-
tions than he himself had. He fully sympathised iu every-
thing that his hon. friend had said against that practice ;
he objected quite as strongly as he did to the illegitimate
exercise of the influence of landlords and others with the
view of coercing their tenants or their dependents at the
pull, and there was nothing which his hon. friend had said
on that subject to which he did not assent. But hosing made
that declaration, he must add that he was not prepared to
adopt his hon. iriend's remedy, or to admit that it would
in fact be a remedy. (Hear, hear.) His firm conviction was
that if they attempted to introduce a system of compul-
sory secresy of voting in this country, it would be an at-
tempt to row against an irresistible current, it would be
an attempt to force upon the people of this country an in-
stiinttion thoroughly repugnant to their habits and nature.
(Cheers from the opposition side cf the house.) He be-
lieved that if-his hon. friend, instead of using the atnbigu-
one phrases that he had done, were to bring in a bill dis-
tinctly embodying the sealed envelope system, or a bill
making it compulsory upon every voter to conceal his Vote
at an election, he would find that the general feeling of
the country was against him. (Hear.) If there was to be a
compulsory system it must be accompanied with a penalty
for the violation of secrecy ; to that extent they must in-
evitably go. If they visited a man with a penalty for
showing his vote at an election, how could they allow a
candidate to visit the electors and ask them for their
votes? (Hear, hear.) If the election was to be secret—if
it was to be as silent as a funeral—it would be utterly in-
consistent with such a state of things to permit any inter-
course between the candidate and an elector. His hon.
friend had been indulging in general phrases, reading ex-
tracts from newspapers, and so on, without perhaps very
minutely considering' the details of the measure which he
wished the house to adopt. Ho was inclined to think that
he had never actually faced the system of compulsory sec-
. rosy, and that what he had in his mind was, in fact, op-
tional secresy, that is to say a law which would permit
a man who wished for secresy to give his vote without ex-
hibiting it. If he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did
not misinterpret the views which the community enter-
' tained on this subject, that. was the kind of ballot which
• the majority of persons had in their mind, and it was that
which was held to be a panacea for all electoral evils.
Now, supposing a measure for the introduction of the gal-
' lot to have been embodied in such a form as he had indi-
cated, namely, that of optional secresy, or the allowing
persons to conceal their votes if they wished to do
' so, he must be permitted to express an opinion that
the great majority of the voters at elections were
prepared to avow their votes—(cheers)—that the great
majority were, in fact, desirous of avowing them—(hear,
hear)—that they had strong feelings in favour of one
candidate, and against another ; and that they were not,
as his hon. friend hal eescribad many of bis countrymen to
be, mere flocks of sheep who were driven up to the poll.
Though many of them might not be very exalted in station
they nevertheless held very decided pc;litical opinions,
which they retained for years, and he thought every gen-
tleman who had been in the habit of canvassing a consti-
tuency would bear testimony to that fact. Well, now, he
thought that if vote by ballot were introduced in an op-
tional form, the result would be that a great majority of
electors would exhibit their votes. The only effect of the
change would be that those who wished to intimidate or
coerce a voter would give him notice that he would be
watched at the poll, and that if he did not display his vote
it would be assumed that he had vote i contrary to their
wish. The only result of such a law as could ba practically
worked in this country would be that as regarded persost
who were resolved upon intimidation, the mode of intimi-
dation resorted to would be changed, while no effectual pro-
tection would be given to the dependent voter. He would
suppose, what he hoped would never occur again in this
country, that there was a division between different classes
of sooiety in reference to the laws relating to food, and that
on that subject the agricultural interest was arrayed
against the rest of the community. He would suppose that
there was a rural parish in which there was to be found a
blacksmith and a wheelwright who were small freeholders
working for neighbouring farmers, and living by the cus-
tom of those farmers ; and he would suppose that these
small freeholders were informed by the farmers before an
election that unless they exhibited their votes at the poll-
ing place it would be assumed that they had not voted in a
certain prescribed manner, and that their custom would in
that case be withdrawn. ti what respect would such a law
of optional secresy afford any protection to a dependent
voter? It was clear that it would not afford any protection.
In order to give effectual protection they must do what had
never been done yet in the United S sees—they must alter
the whole course, and character of their elections, and
the very habits of the people; they must attempt to do
by legislation what legislation would in fact be powerless
to effect. For tips° reasons, not because he thought voting
by ballot un-English or unmanly, not because he shared in
any of those popular objections to the ballot which his hon.
friend had treated with so much contempt, but because he
believed that in one form it was utterly impracticable, ir-
reconcileable with the habits of this country, and not re-
, commended by experience in
.those countries which were
held up as models for imitation, and because be believed
that in the other form it would be found ineffectual for the
object iu view--for those reasons his felt bound to oppose
the motion. He thought it was to public opinion—to the
diffusion of sounder views as to the relations between the
electors and those who were able to control their votes—
that they should look for an improvement of the present
• system. In support of the view that public opinion tended
to remove the worst evils of a system of intimidation, he
would appeal to the election which had recently taken
place. He did not mean to say that that election was un-
tainted by the vices of intimidation and coercion. With
regard to bribery, he did not believe the ballot would pro-
duce any effect; with regard to intimidation and coercion,
no doubt if every one could keep his secret, protection
might be afforded. He could not anticipate compulsory
•

•
secrecy, so long as public opinion in this country remained
what it was. The other system, which was practically
that of the United States, would leave them in the state in
which they were. They had been tending gradually more
an 1 mere at each succassive election to a state of things in
which all the electors would be allowed to exercise their
independent judgment, as he believed the great body of the
electors had done at the last election. Judging from such
moans of observation as ho possessed, it was his firm belief
that even if the votes at the lnst election had been taken
under the shield of any form of ballot which his hon. friend
(Hr. Berkeley) could devise, the result would have been
substantially identical with that which open voting had
produced. (Hear.)
Mr. GREER was glad that the right hon. gentleman had
rested his argument on the results of experience, as the
advocates of the ballot were prepared to meet him on that
issue. (Hear, hear.) The right bon. gentleman said a good
deal about the optional secret voting in the United States.
Was he prepared to concede such a system in a modified
form ? What was the result of experience with regard to
the system of open voting ? It was ono of the principles of
the constitution of this country that every elector had a
right to exercise the franchise, yet they knew that in point
of fact this right had not been enjoyed. The hon. member
then went, in the midst of great uproar, to contend that
the motion of the hon. member for Bristol only carried out
the principle of an act of Parliament passed during the
present reign for the protection of the voter; but the calls
for a division were so loud and persistent that but a few
broken sentences reached the gallery. He contended that
while the gentlemen of England persevered in the use of
the ballot at their clubs, to deny its aid to the poor voter
was mere hypocrisy. (Cheers.)
Lord J. RUSSELL, whose rising was the sighal for loud
cheering, spoke as follows :--Although, sir, I might well
claim as an excuse for not addressing the house upon this
subject, that I have often done so on former occasions, yet
as my hon. friend the member for Bristol, considering this
to be a new Parliament, has thought it necessary to make,
I may say, greater exertions to prove his case than he has
ever made before, I will venture to trouble the house with
some of the views which I entertain in opposition to his.
(Cheers.) It is not to be denied that my hon. friend and
his ballot committeehavo made a very considerable impres-
sion upon a part at least of the public, and I have cer-
tainly thought it my duty to consider and reconsider the
various arguments which are adduced for and against the
measure. Sir, it appears to me that my hon. friend, and
those who are with him, rest their case upon three assump-
tions of fact and of opinion, all of which I believe to be
erroneous. The first assumption is, that at the present
moment there prevails so much of intimidation that it is
impossible that the opinions of those who are entrusted with
the legislative franchise can be fairly ascertained. Thenext
assumption is that the voter has a right, an indefeasible
right, to give his vote without reference to the opinions of
any other but himself, without being brought before any
tribunal of opinion to answer for his vote. (Hear, hear.)
The third assumption is, that there is a very general and
prevailing opinion throughout the country in favour of
secret voting. (Cheers.) Now, sir, I will consider these
several assumptions. The first that I have stated is, that
intimidation prevails to such an extent that the opinion of
the voters is not fairly ascertained. If, sir, the hon. gen-
tleman relies upon particular instances, I will allow that
there is no general election which passes without instances
of intimidation taking place and being brought forward in
this house. But when my hon. friend passes from the
proof which he has brought forward several times of differ-
ent instances—such as the conduct of the steward of the
Marquis of Waterford, in the present instance--when he
proceeds from these to state that the general elections did
not fairly represent the opinions of the constituent body,
I conceive that he is gravely in error. My hon. friend cites
as a proof of his proposition an instance which I should
have thought would have been one of the last he would
have chosen, viz., the elections after the Reform Bill.
Now, with respect to the elections for the counties for the
last quarter of the century, I remember that at the time
when the Reform Bill was first proposed, that of the 80
members who then represented England and Wales, 76
were elected to vote in favour of reform. I remember,
after that, when there was a question of the repeal of the
corn laws, and protection was the banner on one side and
free trade on the other, that the liberal members, who had
a vast majority at the time of the passing of the Reform
Bill, became a minority. I believe that, in both those
cases, such was the opinion of the electors who sent those
members. I believe that the great majority in favour of
the Reform Bill represented the opinion of the counties in
favour of that act ; and I believe no less that the majority
in favour of protection likewise represented the opinion of
, the counties, where views favourable to free trade un-
doubtedly did not prevail. And, sir, in opposition to the
view of my lieu, friend, that had the ballot existed the corn
laws would sooner have been repealed, I will refer to a
statement made by Mr. Cobden. Mr: Cobden stated that
when he and Mr. Bright--and there could not be two more
powerful and talented advocates in any cause—(cheers) -
and of whom I may be permitted to say, that each day I
regret their loss to this house—(cheers)—Mr. Cobden stated
when he and Mr. Bright first went to Leeds ma order to
hold a meeting there, there was some difficulty in filling a
room with those who were favourable to a repeal of the
corn laws, and when they passed through the streets they
were entirely unnoticed. Mr. Cobden went on to state
that the year of the repeal of the corn laws was the first in
which the working classes generally were in favour of such
a measure, and that then he and Mr. Bright were received
at Leeds with acclamations. I remember that in 1841,
when parliament was dissolved, the working classes were
tel.], on the one hand, that the repeal of those statutes
would bring cheap bread, and on the other that it would
produce low wages. Naturally their minds were confused
by these conflicting statements, and I believe that the
general impression was that the proposed steps in legisla-
tion would chiefly result in a general depression of wages.
Speaking of the influence of landlords, I would say that I
really believe that tenants generally prefer to vote with
their landlords rather than against them. I will give an
instance which I heard from Lord Spencer when Lord Al-
, thorp, who was no advocate for the turn-laws, but who was
a liberal landlord, not likely to disturb any tenant on ac-
count of his political predilections. I asked him whether
his tenants generally were with him in favour of free trade,
and he told me that generally speaking they were protec-
tionists. I asked which way they were accustomed to vote,
and he told me that they usually voted with him. (Cheers
and laughter.) I mention this as an instance of the
natural tendency of tenants to vote with their land-
lords. I may point as another instance of the manner
in which, under existing circumstances, the current of
public opinion is duly represented, to the fact that during
the struggle between protection and free trade the coun-
ties almost always returned conservative and therefore
protectionist candidates. But we see at the late elections
how the question of free trade and protection is at an end,
and all are free-traders; that liberal candidates have
again come into the places which they formerly held, and
that they have in many instances received the same favour
as they enjoyed before the question of protection and free
trade arose. Yo intimidation on the part of landlords has
prevented the return of those liberal candidates—returns
which I believe, at all events I hope, will take place to a
still greater extent at the next election. (Cheers and
laughter.) I then come, sir, to the next assumption, which
is an assumption always made, but against which I, for
my part, must always protest, viz., that in contradistinc-
L tion to every other claim, the country, the electors—the'
, freeholders, the leaseholders, and 101. householders--are to
• be accounted inviolable ; that they are to ba considered
, without sin and without error; and that there is to be left
• in their hands a distinct and free power of giving their vote
in whatever manner they please. I was amused, when I
• considered the tenor of his speech, by my hon. friend stat-
, ing that the right of voting is a trust. It is a trust in
• common with all other powers in this country. I go to the
• Sovereign on the throne, who is a trustee for th benefit
. of the country ; I go to the other house, the members of
which hold their seats upon trust for the public good ; I
say the same of the Ministers of the Crown; I say the
same of the judges of the land ; and I say the same of the
electors, who are to choose the members of the Commons
, House of Parliament, whose function it is to dispose of the
property and to maiutain the liberty of the people of this
country. Will any one contend that that is a wrong prin-
ciple, or that there is any class who ought to be free from
this inspection and control of public opinion, which at-
taches to persons in tho highest positions in this country?
I will take the case of the Chief Justice of the King's
Bench, Lord Ellenborough. He was a person of great
talents, of eminent learning, and entirely qualified to hold
, that high position. We are told in that amusing and
instructive work, "The Lives of the Chief Justices," by
Lord Campbell, that Lord Ellenborough felt extremely
hurt at the public comments which were made by the
press and by individuals as to his conduct on the bencb.
Will the honourable gentleman say—indeed, I am sure
he will not say--that it was wrong that such comments
should have been made ? Shall I say, then, that in the
case of a man like Lord Ellenborough, dispensing justice
before the eyes of the world, that such comments are just
, and reasonable, and useful, and yet that they ought not
to be made in the case of freeholders, and leaseholders,
and 101. householders, who of all classes are to be freed
from all examination and observation? (Cheers.) My
hon. friend might make out a case, perhaps, if he were to
imagine • - that there were a system of universal suffrage, or
manhood suffrage, so that every person of full age could
give a vote ; but that would be a new theory, a theory not
of the British constitution, but of some other. What the
British constitution does, is to give to certain persons,
with certain qualifications and under certain conditions,
the power to choose representatives, and then to leave the
nation, and public in general, tee control, criticise, and
check that power. (Cheers.) This is the rule which ex-
tends over judges on the bench, over ministers of the
crown. and over all persons exercising authority in this
country—it is the rule of public opinion. . Take any
question as to China, as to Italy, or as to the present un-
happy state of India ; upon shy of these the Government,
as the executive and the responsible counsellors of the
Crown, may adopt what measures they please, but they
must, nevertheless, in taking these measures, be subject
to public opinion, and to the sanction of this house.
(Hear, hear.) It is said that it is impossible that electors
can do wrong. I think I have known instances in which
voters have come round a candidate, have formed a com-
mittee, have canvassed for him, and, after all, have re-
ceived bribes from the other side, and have given their
votes for the opposite candidate. Now, let the manner of
voting be secret, as my hon. friend desires, and we should
then be liable to have committees acting in this way, and
at the close of an election informing the candidate of his
want of success, and assuring him of their endeavours in
his behalf, whilst, in point of fact, they might
have voted (and it would be impossible to as-
certain the fact) for the other candidate. (Hear.) MY
hon. friend says that a voter may give a promise to f.t.
candidate, and yet be at liberty to break that promise.e ,1
suppose I must accept that as good morality, but 1 only
say it is strange and new to me. (Hear.) My hon. friend
put the case of Brown. Brown was verymuch intimidated.
I beg to bring Jones and Robinson into court. (Laughter.)
Brown is asked by his landlord to go and canvass for a
candidate who is going to stand fora county. He says the
etection will not takeplace for some time, but we aregoing
to have a dinner in favour of conservative policy ; you are
a good conservative, and if you will take the head of the
table and give the toasts, and lead the way, it will be a
great advantage. Brown says certainly. He presides at
the dinner, gives the wrong toast, he makes the wrong
speech, sings the wrong song, and having done all this
and persuaded the gentlemen at the table that he is an ex-
cellent conservative, he goes on the day of election with
another ticket and votes for the liberal candidate. (Hear,
from Mr. Roebuck). The hon. and learned member for
Sheffield thinks that a lair proceeding. (Laughter.) I am
not now speaking of the morality of the vote. But this is
the sort of thing people mean when they say the ballot is
un-English -that treachery is un-English, that promise-
breaking is un-English. (Hear.) I am inclined to be of
that opinion. (Cheers.) I now come to the last assump-
tion of my hon. friend, that the proposal of the ballot
meets with great favour in the country. I believe that
although there is a large party in favour of the ballot—
s that although a great body of the electors feel sore after

an election—that although they believe intimidation has
taken place—yet Ido not believe that the general opinion
of the country is in favour of secret voting. I have had
cce-siou to address great numbers of the people—from
31.300 to 4000 at the time—and I have stated my objecti ns
to the ballot, and I have always found the meetings nearly
equally divided, if I had not the majority in my favour,
when I spoke against the ballot. I believe there
is much truth in the clear statement which my light hon.
friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made with
respect to the ballot. He has entered into details
respecting the American elections. He has shown
that whilst there is the ballot in that country, the ballot
is by no means synonymous with secret voting. Y. u may
often know by the form of the ticket which way a man
votes. In other instances he takes a ticket of a particular
colour, blue or yellow. If he does that there is an end of
secresy, and an end of the security against intimidation ;
because if you say that the secresy is optional, you at once
give the customer, the landlord, the means of defeating
the secresy altogether. He may say, if you vote secretly
—if you have a voting paper done up in an envelope, and it
is not the colour or shape of ours, we know how you have
voted, and will consider you as much an enemy as if we
knew you had voted for the opposition. There is no resort
but a compulsory secresy, under which no man shall be
allowed to state what his vote was. Now, does any man
believe that would take place more in England than in
America? Does any man believe that the truth telling
people of this country would not, nearly every one of them
say, " I am so eager for the return of Sir Thomas So and
So, that I shall give him mp vote, and I hope my neigh-
bours will do the same?" That would be the general prac-
tice, and secresy would be confined to a few; and being
confined to a few would not benefit that few. (Hear.) I
think there is mischief in introducing a new mode of vot-
ing, which would tend to take away something from the
openness of the character of Englishmen. I think there
is mischief in introducing a considerable innovation that
is not likely to succeed. I cannot believe there would be
a complete change iu the character of Englishmen owing to
this new mode of voting, and I think as far as it goes that
the evil would far overpower the good. (Hear.) I do
not believe that the elections in this country, generally
speaking, are produced by intimidation and corruption,
and I cannot agree with my honourable friend when
he says that open voting is a corrupt agreement he
tween one rogue and another. (Great laughter.) We
have gone on for a long time with this imperfect and
corrupt mode of voting. We have gained great liberty,
and it was not until of late years that this mode of secret
voting was thought of. Liberty has made greater ad-
vances in this country than in any other country in Eu-
rope, sad therei a more freedom here than in the United
States of America. (Hear.) Look at the Liberal measures
which have been passed during the last 25 or 30 years, un-
der the system of open voting. I will not go into detail,
but I may mention the carrying of parliamentary reform,
the repeal of the corn-laws, the opening of corporations,
and a number of other measures; all of which have been
carried into effect under that system of voting which my
hon. friend says is an agreement between one rogue and
another. I beg to demur, on behalf of this much maligned
house and this much maligned constitution, to the state-
ment of my hon. friend. (Hear.) He says, last of all,
only consider the case of Australia—in Victoria you have
the most wonderful specimen of secret voting, which has
succeeded admirably, and even the Attorney-General has
been convinced. The constitution of Victoria to which he
refers is that which I introduced two years ago. When we
are told that it is to be held up as a great object of imita-
tion I am reminded of a passage in the amusing play of
" The Rovers," where one of the characters tells the glori-
ous news that the plans have been successful—that the
venerated and inestimable inheritance of Britons, Magna
Charta, was signed last Friday week, the 3d of July.
(Laughter.) The remarks on the new constitution of Vic-
toria are of that kind. For my part I should be waiting a
few years. Before following the example of Victoria,
which may be a good example, we, the older and more
cautious assembly of the two, may wait a few years, in
order to see whether this triumph of secret voting does
answer as satisfactorily as it promises to do. (Hear.)
With regard to the statement of public opinion I cannot
avoid noticing one of the remarks made by the hon.' mem-
ber for Westminster, who seconded the motion. He said,
ant made it apparent by figures, that the great majority
of the liberal party in the last parliament voted in favour of
the ballot—that there were, perhaps, not more than 10 or 20
persons out of office who voted against the ballot. Now I
don't know why gentlemen who have been elected by
large constituencies should be excluded from the right of
voting merely because they have accepted office. (Hear.)
The hon. members says that as the great majority of Libe-
rals were in favour of the ballot, they had only to go to
the noble lord at the head of the Treasury and tell him
they would not support his Government any longer unless
he and his Cabinet carried the ballot. Now that, coming
from an adherent of my noble friend, is the most degrading
proposal I ever heard. (Cheers ) Sir R. Peel at one time
said the state of the Irish Church is such that it forces me
to abandon the views I have held respecting Catholic eman-
cipation. I could under Stand the same statesman saying
the course of the discussion on the corn laws induces •nee
to think that the best course for the welfare of the coun-
try, and one which is not injurious to conservative institis
tions, will be the repeal of the corn laws; but to tell gen-
tlemen who are not convinced—to tell members of the Cabi-
net that because the great majority of their supporters vote
in favour of the ballot they must do the same—would be a
most disgraceful proposal, and a Minister of the Crown
whom the member making such a proposition professes to
respect, will show he deserves that respect by scornfully
rejecting any such proposition. (Cheers.) My hon. friend
talked of a person—a tenant or tralesman—giving his vote
against his opinion. It has justly been said that that vote
is a lie, and that the member returned in consequence of
that vote is the incarnation of a lie. I should say that the
votes of members of a Cabinet in favour of the ballot
against their own opinions—against their decided convic-
tions—would be pronounced a lie, and that a measure,
carrying out the ballot as their deliberate opinion, would
be but the embodiment of that lie. I must say, that I
think my hon. friend deserves success, from the ability he
has shown and the perseverance he has manifested on this
question. (Hear, hear) For my own part, if Parliament
should decide that the ballot is to be the law of the land,
I, like others, must bow to that law ; but, until it is made
the law, so long as I can give a vote in the House of Corn-
mom on the subject, that vote will be given against secret
voting, and in favour of the old and national system of
open voting. (Cheers.)
Mr. BERKELEY then replied, amid cries of "Divide,
divide." He remarked that in the case of Victoria the
experiment of the ballot, so far as it bad been tried, had
proved perfectly successful; and after what had taken place
in the city during the last election, he was surprised that
his noble friend had not yet made up his mind to support
the ballot. He had a strong hope that a change would
shortly take place in the opinions of the house, but he felt
that it would not arise from anything that would occur
within these doors, but from the strong feeling that would
be brought to bear upon Parliament from without.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER wished to
explain an unintentional misrepresentation which hishon.
friend had given of his meaning. What he stated with re-
gard to America was, that vote by ballot prevailed gene-
rally throughout the United etates, but that there wee
only one state in which it had been accompanied by com-
pulsory secresy—that that compulsory secresy had existed
for only two years, and had since been repealed ; and that
therefore it did not appear that there was one of the United
States in which vote by ballot was now accompanied by
compulsory (Hear, hear.)
lhehou
A y esseset. .....................d.... . ..d—
-. 189
Noes
The motion was thus lost.
REGISTRATION OF NEWSPAPERS.
Mr. AYRTON, in moving for a copy of the case sub-
mitted to the law officers of the Crown, respecting the re-
gistration of newspapers and other printed papers, and
their opinion thereon, complained that the Government
had not submitted a full and entire case for consideration,
inasmuch as by the old statutes it was provided that no per-
son should print or publish any newspaper, pamphlet, or
other paper containing any news or any remark thereon
on any matter in Church or State, which shall not exceed
two sheets, without giving recognizance to the Crown for
4001., with two sureties for the like amount. The necessity
for registration, he contended, had expired with the stamp
duties on newspapers, and the case ought to have been
• submitted, as it affected publications of all kinds, and not
have been confined to newspapers only.
' Mr. WILLIAMS seconded the motion.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
could not quite understand the object of the honourable
. gentleman's motion, but he could not feel justified in com-
. plying with the terms of is. Two years ago, when the
compulsory stamp was abolished, he had distinctly stated
that the law effecting the registration of newspapers would
be in no way affected by the measure which abolished the
stamp duty. (Cries of " Divide.")
Mr. AYRTON said he would not divide the house, bat
would take another opportunity of bringing the subject
for ward.

THE SUPERANNUATION BILL.
Lord NAAS moved for leave to i.ring in a bill to repeal
the 27th section of the Superannuation Act of 1831, and entered into a lengthened and elaborate detail of the ques-
tion at issue between the civil service and the Government.
Mr. T. HANKEY seconded the motion.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER opposed it,
and explained his reasons by a multiplicity of figures and
a reference to the data of Government actuaries.
Sir F. BARING said he hoped Government would al-
low the bill to be brought in, and have the matter fully
discussed.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that he
bad no ohjection to the introduction of the bill on the un-
derstanding that it was for the purpose of allowing a full
discussion of the question, and that it did not pledge the
Government to the principle of the bill.
Leave wai then given to introduce the bill.
CONVEYANCE OF MAILS BY RAILWAYS.
Mr. WILSON brought in a bill for the improvement of
the law relating to the conveyance of mails by railways.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of and
the house adjourned at ten minutes past one o'clock.

BIRTHS.
OF A SON,

On
G wood
cumberland -, he 29th Juno at the Dowager Lady Batsman's, in
w plaee, the Hon. Mrs. George Dash-
the 30th June, at Putney, the wife of Herbert H.
On r.
Playford.
-

-
OF A DAUGUTER.
square
On the 28th Juno, Mrs, Moss Woolf, of 16, Wellclose-
On the 28th June, at Grove-bill, Worcestershire, the
wife of Benjamin Bright, Esq.

MARRIED.
On the 30th Juno, at St. George's, Hanover-square,
Count Aurelio S of Forti, Romagna, to Georgiana
Janet, second daughter of John Craufurd, Esq., of Auche-
names , N.B.
On the 27th June, at St. George's, Hanover•square, Cap
tain Wm. W. W. Humbley, late 9th Lancers, to Elizabeth
Nelson, only surviving (laughter of the late Wm. Nelson
Watson, Esq., of Gainsborougb, Lincolnshire.

DIED.
On the 26th June, at the house of his sister, Lady'
Georgiana Fane, of Upper Brook-street, • the Hon. Mon-
tague Fano.

on the 28th June, at Hammersmith, Edward Miller
Esq., for many years of the Commissariat Department
Treasury, aged 72.
On the 29th June, in Middle Scotland-yard, Whitehall,
Mary Ann, wife of Joseph Hanby, Esq., of Addleatono
Lodge, near Chertsey, Surrey.
On the 25th June, at Bridgewater, Richard Woodland,
Esq., banker, aged 73.

LONDON: Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG,
of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No.
112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the county
of Middlesex, Wednesday, July le 1857.