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

THE OATHS BILL.

Lord CAMPBELL presented;" petition from
the Lord Mayor and corporation of the
city of London in favour of this bill,

The noble and learned lord said he thought the
time had now arrived when they could saftly
a'llw the services of persons of the Jewish faith
to be applied to the benefit of the country in general.

OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of this
bill,

The Earl of CARNARVON rose to present a petition
against a certain clause in the bill, and entered at some
length into the principles of the bill of which he strongly
disapproved.

The Earl of HARROWBY, after presenting a num-
ber of petitions in favour of the bill, proceed to txplain
in detail the objects of the bill.
Tho bill was read a second time, after a few observa-
tions from the Earl of DEBBY.

The Turnpike Trusts Arrangement Bill, the Insurance
on Lives (abatement of Income Tax) Continuance Bill,
and the Harley Borough Corporation Bill were read a
second time. The report of the Joint-Stock Companies
Act Amendment Bill was considered. The County Cess
(Ireland) Bill was read a third time and passed. Toe
Town By-laws Revision Bill went through committee.
The Court of Exchequer (Ireland) Bill was read a
third time and passed.
The Earl of DUNGANNON inquired whether the
laws for removing the Irish-born from England were
likely to be repealed

Earl GRANVILLE agreed that the course pursued
was unjust, but the practice at present could not be
amended.

Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YEsTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at twelve o'clock.
BODMIN ELECTION.
______

The SPEAKER informed the house that he had re-
ceived a letter from the agents of the petitioners against
the return of the sitting member (Mr. Wyld) stating
that it was not their intention to proceed with the peti-
tion.

Mr. WYLD said it was his intention at six o'clock
this evening, to call attention to the circumstances
connected with this petition. The petitioners had libelled
himself and his constituents, and the forms of
the house prevented him from appealing to
any other tribunal. He should move that
certain documents be placed in the hands of the law
authorities, and that f 3rtain individuals should be called
to the bar of the house.

SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY (GREENWICH
JUNCTION TO DARTFORD).
On the consideration of the report of the committee on
this bill,

Lord A. PAGET moved that the bill be read a third
ime.

Sir E. DERING said he felt very much dissatisfied
with the result of the deliberations of the committee, and
he should therefore move that the bill be read a third
time that day three months.
Col. FREESTUN supported the third reading of
the bill, as the committee had resolved that the pre-
amble had been proved.
Mr. B. OSBORNE strongly opposed the further
progress of the bill.
Mr. RICH said the committee bad declared in
favour of this line, and the bill ought therefore to be
read a third time. He complained that the opposi-
tion to the bill was an attempt, on the part of an
opposing railway, to see how much they could screw
out of the South-Eastern Railway.
Sir B. BRIDGES opposed the bill.
. _

Sir B. HALL said the better course to pursue was
to postpone the further consideration of the bill
until next year. Each of the railway companies said it
would be for the benefit of the public that their respec-
tive lines should be made, and, under these cir•
cumstances, if the course he suggested was followed, the
two schemes could then be fully considered, and the
one which was proved to be the most beneficial to the
public adopted. He should vote for the postponement
of the bill.

Mr. BENTINCK said there bad lately been a dread-
ful railway accident, and this circumstance afforded
additional argument for the postponement of the bill.
Mr. GILPIN said that if the present bill had been
passed and the time laid down the accident could not or
would not have happened.
Mr. HOPE should vote for the third reading of the
bill. He could not sanction a measure intended to
reduce the income of the South-Eastern Railway.
Colonel FRENCH—In di, cussion on private bills it
was generally understood that Ministers did not inter-
fere, yet the house bad been addressed by two members
of the Government, the hoe. baronet the member
for Marylebone and the hon. member for Doier. The
latter bon. member might, as he represented Dover,
have some reason for interfering, but not so in the other
instance. He should support the third reading.
Sir J. V. SHELLEY said, considering the part of the
metropolis the right hon. bart represented, be had more
right to interfere in this discussion than the hon. gen-
tleman, the member for Roscommon. He should vote
for the postponement of the third reading of the bill.
After a short discussion, in which Mr. Watkins, 'Mr.
T. Duncombe, Mr. Cobbett, and the Earl of March,
took part, the bill was ordered to be read a third time,
without a division.

The Pimlico Improvement and the Public Offices
Extension bills were read 'a second time.
FINSBURY PARK BILL.
The adjourned debate on this bill was then resumed.
Mr. COX said the vote of the house on the previous
occasion when the subject was under discussion
was accepted by the Board of Works, as a denial of a
Government grant to the park.
Mr. WILLIAMS withdrew his amendment and the
bill was read a second time.

BANKRITPTCY AND INSOLVENCY (IRELAND)

BILL. •

The house then went into committee on this bill.
Clauses 153 up to 160 were agreed to.
Upon clause 161 being proposed,
Mr. BLAND moved an amendment, to the effect that
in cases of bankruptcy no action should be commenced
against a shareholder in a company without leave of the
court.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND said the
amendment was a very important one, and such being
the case he suggested striking out the clause altoge.
ther. If the clause was struck out be would at a
future stage of the bill bring up a clause which
would meet the views of the honourable member. It
would go to the extent of securing, during the proceed-
ings in bankruptcy, both the property and person of
the bankrupt.
Clause 161 was accordingly struck out.
Clauses 162 to 314 inclusive were agreed to.
the bill were agreed to, and
TChlaeusreen33lasinwioags
clausesstruck oout.
t was ordered to be reported on Monday next.

NEW MEMBER.
Mr. ELuoT took the oaths and his seat for Rox.
burgbshire.

The sitting was then suspended till 6 o'clock, when
,he house resumed.

THE CHURCH SERVICE.
Lord R. GROSVENOR said that on Tuesday next,
or on the first vacant day, he should move the following
resolution :--" That an humble address be presented to
the Queen, praying that her Majesty will be graciously
pleased to appoint a commission for the purpose of con-
sidering whether the Liturgy of the Church of England
be not capable of such modifications of its arrangements
and services as will render it more profitable than it now
is for the religious instruction and edification of the
people."

REGISTRATION OF TITLES.
Mr. GREER asked the Attorney-General whether he
proposed to introduce a bill during the present or the
next session of Parliament for the registration of titles
to property in land, and whether any such bill would be
ip emordance with the report of the coturaiskionerN ap,

p Unted to consider that subject, which bad lately been
subnitt ,d to pailianient ; also, whether provision would
be made for continuing the benefit of a Parliamentary
title to purchasers from the Incumbered Estates' Courtin
Ireland, and for adopting the maps of the Ordrance kw-
vey, now completed in that country, as au index to the
register of titles in Ireland.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he would' lay a
bill on the table before the end of the session, though
not with a view to its being passed this session.

IND—IA..
Cul. FRENCH asked whether it was true tlat appli-
I cation bad been made by the Hon. East India Company
to the Government for vessels to carry troops, which
application bad 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 was not true that such ap•
plication had 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 iu 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.
lo wed.

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 how 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 rod', devour all your smaller measures of
Reform." (A. little.) Hon. members, accordingly, had
waited for that event. Now, those who advocated the
ballot had not the least objection to wait, but they had
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 begge I 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 be might
have a stniehtforward answer, without those little
flowers of diplomacy which were generally sprinkled
upon Ministerial replies. If this question were answered
in the.affirenative he had nothing to do but to a t down,
and he thought the cheer with which such an announce-
ment would be received would be echoed from every
past 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 bon, gentleman paused accordingly, bat, as he
remained standing, apparently fearful of losing his right
to continue his speech, no other member could address
the house. The Chancellor 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 hon. 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
must take it for granted that silence meant dissent. (A.
laugh.) It was not, he presumed, the intention of the
Government to adopt the ballot in their Reform Bill,
whatever they might have determined as to the other
questions which bad been proposed to them. He thoeght,
tnen, 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 objections which had been last put upon
record by hon. members, and he 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 pervei ted, 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 be 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 simple test, yet
it was met with the most etrdnuous 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 tbat
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 beware 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 b 3 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 bad attacked
the ballot and had at the same time given in their ad-
hesion to an extension of the suffrage. He 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 hon. gentle-
man, his eloquence, his powers of reasoning, and the high
position which he held in that house must render every
word that be 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 peromptorily denied that
proposition, and he asserted that be 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
of Mr. George Grote, who also supported an extended
franchise. He (Mr. Berkeley) vo nt as far as Lord Dur-
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, bad 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 had 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 falla-
cies, which were, of course, admirably put forward by
the right hon. gentleman, all their weak parts being
carefully concealed by moat 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 be might think proper without fear of
punishment, without hope of reward. Nobody, there-
fore, bad 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, bat if he wished to strengthen himself
in the eyes of the house he would call into court the late
Sir R. Peel, who said upon this subject—
.To whom is the constituent body responsible ? Is
there any responsibility of any conceivable kind, except
the responsibility to God, to their own consciences, and to
an enlightened deliberate paha *pinion ?"
(Hear.) That was the opinion of the late Sir R. Peel,
and upon it he (Mr. Berkeley) was prepared to take his
stand. Since, then, the elector had 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 he 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 teat of an elector's having sold his
vote or of his having been intfnai lated ? Did it afford
any means of punishing a corrupt elector which
not,
voting did not equally confer ? He said thatit
for he would undertake to prove tbat a conviction _
did
for
if it took place, under
He defined open
bribery would be as attainable,
secret voting as under open voting.
voting to be the ratification ofawtasreattbye
pb.ertewveenetnionof
dis-
honest men ; while secret voting
the ratification of that treaty, because it compelled one
obfyawnhoitchhertilelninotiptseni-
scoundrel to dependbook wu
voting the poll- upon
thnte coherewotrdd
dator 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 thotrands 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 falsify their consciences and to tell a lie, to the great
detriment 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 incur.
nation of that lie to Parliament. (Laughter.) Mr. Dis
raeli told the Buckinghamshire farmers that to allow
the electors to vote in secret—and that he (Mr. Berke-
ley) *untended was to vote without intimidation as en.

~\

joined by law—would be intolerable tyranny upon the
non-electors. Now,
clad
this was assuming covertly that
•
which no hon. member, however aud atcbioaut
there was a
assume openly in that house—named
body of men :n this countryud under whose control the
electors ought to be. It meant that or nothing. (Hear,
bear.) 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 the
non electors were to have the power to control the
electors, why make tyrants of them—why not rather
t give them he
out of. (Hear.) Mr. Disraeli, franchise ! did not think that
of that
the
could be got
nor of Hughenden, in the County of Buckingham,
3:act:aid vote for whom he pleased • he was perfectly inde
e p ndant of everybody ; but John Brown of High Wy-
combe was not independent enough to go against his
tyrant. John Brown, therefore, naturally turned to
Mr. Disraeli and said, "You 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 in. lam not an
independent man. You recollect, sir, the time when you
stood for High Wycombe and told ns that we were sud-
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-
gist you.'" The 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 boo. 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 he 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 I (Hear, from
Lord R. Grosvenor.) He was glad to hear his noble
friend cheer him, and he perceived that his noble friend
had fellen 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 it could not exist under open
voting, but only under secret voting. As his noble friend
bad treated him with that goodelatured ironical cheer,
let biro ask his noble friend to consider what effect pub-
' lie opinion had on the mind of a man 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 measure, and the
arguments in the public press, and then, after getting
the best information he could, and deliberating upon it,
he went to the pen' 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 This
or That was public opinion 1 The press might write by
the yard, public men might talk by the hour ; all that
could make no practical impression ou 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 l (Hear.) Take the case of
any set of men—the workmen at. the mills, fur instance.
Of what use 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 cut 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 longdi,l public opinion notoriously wage
war against the corn laws in vain f—until at length
something very like a great and powerful oonspiracy 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 now attempted
to answer some of the latest areuments against the ballot.
The usual mode of attack had been by guesses and sur-
' raises. When gentlemen bad 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 wool I see that where the
ballot existed the best results had 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
land. There the ballot acted peculiarly well; and so it did
in Belgium. It might be 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 of men that
(meld not be 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 regarded 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. Valerie), 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.he thought that with respect to civil Government it
might also learn a lesson from the absence of tail:nide-
tion on the part of the priests and aristocracy at the
Sardinian elections. He (Mr. Berkeley) would ask the
house to compare the absence of intimidation in Sar-
dinia with the intimidation exercised by the priests
and the. tteistocraoy 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
eli thoee States where intimidation or corruption bad
crept in it was. found to be the result of a loose mode
of halloting, but wherever the strict secrecy of the
lad been maintained it had been attended with
the bast effects. He had on former occasions brought
the case of America before the house at such 'length that
Lie would not now have said anything more on the sub-
htenbuts fora, paragraph in the Times which was very
Jtkely td be quoted, as anything which was supposed to
tea against. the ballot was eagerly snaschcd at. Thet
paragraph appeared under the pompous heading—"An
Election Contrast. " Now, a residence of many yeers
iso4nnaerica, and a knowledge of the character of the
people of that country, led him to doubt whether this
pasagrdpla lead been written by an American. The
pansgeaph coMmenced by assuring its readers that the
Loudon imea .was the proper authority with regard to
the,Epglielayepresontative system, and the writer then
preceeeteatesdra.w a comparison 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 wheels
within wheels which existed, and the general coin-
plexita 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-
tralian colonies of Great Britain. But when he found a
writer in an American paper thus asserting the supe-
riority of the English patrician syetern over the Ame-
rican system of ballot, he would not believe the
author was an American, for he would evideetly 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 nsturo, and
he 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 those
States i.n which open voting was originally established
bad
gores over One by one to the system of ballot, with
the exception of two slave States, and one of those
States (Virginia) had at
whothe last election rendered itself
infamous, tor the voters
openly for Celenel Tremont
t went to record their votes
obliged to fir for irere attacked, hudnterill,
that an
American gentleman of great
vv;resilteattsabailpipye,aaren t,
advocateasn
of New York, Mr. Compton
this country, and had very kindalels had
lately
visited
kindle
thaisaopscincijottnys
touching the Americon system of
with which he (Mr. Berkeley) was
lot Society. At the request of that secietee'ld, the lid-
attended a public meeting at Haverfoyrdwer.
an-
cestors having been Welshmen, where he''t expressedh
opinions, some of which he (Mr. Berkeley) beggedmission to quote. [rise hon. member then real Borne
Bo
lengthy ex racts from the speech of Mr. Williams,
who
' said that in his own country he had never heard any ex-
pression of hoitility 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 electors were furnished with slips
• of paper, stating the number of representatives to be
elected, and these slips, which were called the " ballots,"
were either printed or written. It was unnecessary to
make a candidate an enemy by telling him ho would
vote against him, for the ballot afforded protection to the
elector, He (Mr.Williams)expreered his surprise
to find that unsuccessful attempts had been made
esll'. Eklarid. for twenty-live years to obtain the ballot.
ane. object sought to be secured ill America was that
the elector sihould vote for himself and not somebody
else for- him, and that ohject was efft:c!:uaily secure d
by the ballot. He regretted to say, however, that
intimidation and bribery- were not totally unknown in
America. (Hear.) There were in that country great p-s-
-ditical combinations ; there were pe Ldn, captains Ih I of tens
i
and fifties and hundreds, who boasted that they could
9.-hpel their followers to vote as they
pleased ; but those
,yere mere words, for they had no power
to control the
. votes of the electors. The votes were secret and although
electors might give promises, it
not be known
M
whether those , promises were CI led or alt was
therefore perfectly useless is exert such promises. He
bra beard it eaid that men miglit watch the box; and sees i
•

- Y

how their tenants and employes voted, but he defied
them to do so successfu'ly. It was, for example, exceed-
ingiy 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 mes-
sage arrived in New York it stated that the Republicans
bad gained the election in the State of Maine by nearly
two to one against the Democrats, and that result (Mr.
Wilaros said) was entirely due to the ballot.] He would
now call the most serious attention of the house to her
Mejesty's Australian dominions. There the ballot was
adopted as the law of the colony of Victoria. It had
been tested there, and the result bad 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
ak the house to " look on this picture and on that."
Tne 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, I
which he had always said was the great malady of our
electoral system. Look to the counties. There political
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-
cause 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-
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 Fuple were a little
more peaceably disposed, nut 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 bad changed bands 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
accerdance 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 electien. (" Hear," and a laugh.) He (Kr. Ber-
lte.ley) 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 way 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 you will be graciously
pleased to permit them, at the approaching general elec-
tion, to record their votes according to the dictates of their
consciences—(a laugb)—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 !

" Ashbrook, April 3.
" Sir —I 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 tkat lie would wish them to vote for Mr. Clark and
Sir H. Bruce at the coming election. (Laughter.)
" Yours faithfully,
"Rev. N. M. Brown." " J. B. MiIIEAPORD.
He (Mr. Berkeley) 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. R.Thartes, in
the course of an address to his constituents at the
last election, 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
(hir. Robartes) declared that, putting himself in the
position of such a man, 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 understanding that he was to vote
in opposition to his conscience. He further said he
should like to see the ballot to-morrow, because he
should then feel more at liberty to speak to his tenants
on political subjects, and to try to win them over to his
own convictions. He was afraid to do so now, because
if be 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.)
That 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 love 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 said that a clergyman of
the Church of England who resided in Essex, but had
property in Kent, having intelligence that a tenant was
about to vote fur Mr. Martin, despatched to him this
letter :

" I hopo 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 "screw"
would not work, and that the tenant retained his inde-
pendence. (Hear.) Another instance 'of intimidation
been the subj,:et or legal proceedings under the Carrupt
Practices Act, in the case of " Queen v. Barnwell" and
that was a failure. The house would do him the justice
to recollect that he had lifted his voice against the Cor-
rupt Practices Act, end that he had branded it as a dis-
graceful specimen of insincerity. It was enacted for the
benefit of eandidatea, and not for the interests of electors.
Tae legal expenses were carefully cut down and the il-
legal expenses were left untouched. The cases which
c mid 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.) Ho did not know how such a man could
tail is win an election, but Lord Henry Thynne did fail,
and in his parting address attributed his failure to inti•
midation. At South Northamptonshire Lord Althorp
was charged with intimidation, and he retorted by mak-
ing the same charge against the other side. In Cam-
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 to the 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 bad not to control, to reward, and to punish the
electors, as the electors had to control. to reward, and to
their representative. If a member of parliament
voted in secret it destroyed the very essence of the repre-
sentative principle. He loft the gallant captain to recon-
oil, his view with that of Mr. Burke, who said, "The
flouse of Commons never could control the functions of
Government unless the members themselves were con-
trolled by their constituents." Lord March took up the
old sons", and said the ballot was unmanly and un
English. Within a very few weeks both he and his noble
lather, the Duke of Richosand, gave a notable example
of the difference between exampleand precept. It chanced
that a chief constable had to be elected. In the western
division of Sussex eight out of nine members voted
against the ballot. It was understood that the votes is
that division for the constable were not to be taken
openly. Everybody
supposed that the Duke of Richmond
would have.appeared with the ballot-box of the Conger-
cativo
he ballot, hit upon a most ingenious expedi.
ClClsb under his arm; but his grace, to avoid coun-
tenancing
ect. He appeared with an old hat and a pack of cards.
He' deposited the old hat •In t
a cornernameaano df
candidates
tthe
cards. The magistrates pa the
on the cards, and deposited the cards in his
grace's hat.
What was the difference between -en voting by ballot and
thdeea lt
votieg in an old hat! Why shoull the one be called un-
manly, un-Eoglisb, and cowardly; and the be th r brave,
manly, and British !He could see no differencew b te
the two things. He cslle,l both voting by ballot;e tatealln
events, the mode adopted by the Duke of Richmond car-
rie 1 out the principle, if not the letter, of the system 9 f
voting which he wanted the house to sanction by its a
pr osal, So much, then, for the elections in counties. The
csmtnit tees now sitting upstairs would show the scenes
that were enacted at the laat elections. Those precious
disclosures the house would have an opportunity of con-
sidering, at.d he trusted it would lay them to heart. He
load stated that in 1332 Mr. Disraeli spoke of an intoler-
.4blo terrorism as then pievailing. That system produced
terror of two kinds—in the first pine, a terror of ruin,