The Sun.
London, England, 1842-06-22 00:00:00

the effect of remedying that deficiency. If after having called
or Hercules to their wheel out of the mire, Hercules
should fail—if after haring imposed their income-tax the mea-
sure should fail to make good the deficiency, it would be la-
mentable indeed. There was the export coal duty—nothing
would be realized from that. From the returns he was autho-
rised in statirg that no increased reve..ue would accrue from
the propesed inctease of duties in Ireland, and he felt assured
that they would have, not a surplus, but a deficiency upon the
budget as originally proposed. A house tax and an increase
in the asiessed tax would have met the deficiency. That
would have been unpopular, and for popularity the Govern-
ment had chosen rightly, but not fur the pet manent interest of
the country. For the country the volunteer budget of the
Noble Earl at the table (Earl Stanhope) would nave been
infinitely preferable to the budget of the Government. Ore
main c,ittse of our difficulties, was the monetary difficulties of
America ; and these difficulties would not have been telt, if we
had see altered our laws as to enable the Americans to pay usin
the only articles in which they could pay—their corn and their
agricultural produce. Another cause of the dcfi. iency was,
the decreased powerof consumption of exciseableartides among
the people at. home. Within the last f.ur years, they had had
to pay twenty millions more for corn than they had had to pay
for the preceding three years. The result of this was, that
they had less to lay out in exciseable articles, and that was the
real source, he verily believed, of the present distress. He
thought the Income-tax one ise and unjust, and therefore he
oppo,ed

institutions. Nothing could be permanent or safe under a
rotten system ; and while there could be no nobler object of
ambition than the leadership of a free people, founded upon
its intelligence and its public virtue, nothing was more pre-
carious or more fleeting than that power which was based
upon the demoralization, and the continuance of which
was de;endent upon the employment, of corruption.
And as the best remedy that his humble 'judgment could
sugeest, as the only remedy which he believed applicable to
the present case, he called upon them, while there was yet
time, to renounce the power which was the origin of the
abuse, and throw themselves henceforward upon their public
merit and public services for their standing in public opinion,
and to put an end to all those odious party combitiations, to
that hypocrisy, to that fraud, of which open voting was the
prolific source in this country, by giving their assent to the
motion which he was about to place in the hands of the
speaker, namely, Tkat in all future elections for Members of
Pai Lament, the votes should be taken by Ballot.
Jr. BERKELEY said, he rose to second the resolution.
After the best consideration, he had come to the conclusion
that all those evils which Hon. Member had predicted, as
likely to occur, in the event of the Ballot becoming the
law of the land, were to be found, in a tenfold degree,
wider the present system of open voting. He had ob-
served, in the debates on the subject, it had been said
that the practice of the Ballot was unmanly and un- English.
lie thought this was not well Said, by persons who used the
ballot-box themselves. But, then, it was contended that the
ballot-box at clubs, and the ballot-box for constituencies, were
not analogous. He would ask 500 Members of that House, all
of vs hum used it, if they did not use the ballot to protect them-
selves rim any obnoxious character, which was admirably de-
scribed by Sheridan, in the character of Sir Lucius O'Trigeer?
‘Vell, if there were Sir Lucius ("Triggers in society, were
there not Sir Lucius O'Triggers in politics infinitely more ob-
noxious? Ile came next to the tenantry of great estates. They
had there a high•pres- urn engine of their own to drive the
screw, in the shape of the landlords, who, it was notorious, in-
spected the voting books as they did the crops, and were more
stringent in the ease of the vote than of the rent. If the tenant
was backward with his me, they ejected him ; if backward
ith his rent, they distrained him. Those tenantry were sent
to the poll, with about the same ceremony as they themselves
drove their beasts to the next market; and the difference be-
tween the quadruped and the biped was this, that the former
was driven to the market, and thence to the knife, and
the latter was driven to the polling booths, which were a species
of moral shambles, where they lost their freedom of action and
independence, and consequently where their self esteem was
ruthlessly sacrificed. And yet they talked of their free and
in Aependent electors. Those were the yeomen so much boasted
of en all occasions. The fear afterall was that unjust influence
would be lost. That was true enough, but just influence
would never be lost by adopting a right and honourable _gout se.
He had been entrusted with several petitions on the subject,
which he looked upon as a brief. Now with regard to the
hi dory that took place in 1837, the only evidence he had to
offer on that subject was, that 5,0001. was spent by the Tory
party, and 2.5u0/. or. the part of the Liberal. Now on the
part of the Liberal tarty he would say he believed that not one
farthing had been spent in bribery, but he could not say so
much of the other party. In the election of 1841, much the
same practices existed. He held in his hand a placard, dated
,tray 29, 1841, signed by Sir. Flipp, declining an invitation
to stand for the borough, and stating that in the election of 1837
5,0e0/. was spent by the Conservative candidates. On the walls,
tee, it was openly posted, " Vote blue ! Money nu object l."—
( (lean) lie had with him a blue book, which was the Tery
pi 11-book for the election, which vas distributed at all the
hotels as the guieie-bcok to tradesmen.—(Hear, hear.) He
would also call their attention to the canvassing books of
the agents, which had their annotations on the margin, and
these were afterwards published. 7he screw was not left to
agents, but these were psis ate directions for its use. The land-
lord's name was printed, then the landlord's residence, and
next the persons having any influence with the occupies. He
hart a few words to say with respect to his own canvass. In
the year 1t37, various parties had expressed a desire to support
bin., but were evidently coerced from Noting with him at the
poll. On the first day of the canvass, he entered the shop of a
small tradesman, who congratulated him on his appearance as
a candidate, in what he called "the old cause. '• He (Mr.
Barclay) then told the friend who accompanied him to put
doe n the man's name for a plumper. The voter said he could
net give him his support; he burst into tears, and said that he
riot only could not vote for him, but that he should vote agaidst
him. He (Mr. Berkeley) was assures! by the gentleman who
accompanied him, that if he pressed him he might obtain his
suppoit, but that if he succeeded he and his family would be
ruined for ever. Now that was, as it appeared to him, a case
which could excite no other feelings than indignation arid regret.
One more case and he would conclude. There was a man
who reported to him that he had always been compelled, not
only to vote but actually to register. AVhen his Right Hon.
Fries(' stood fur Bristol he felt that lie would be compelled to
vote against him, although he was anxious to vote for him. To
avoid voting ha neglected to register ; but when the time for
registeting again came round he was told that if he did not re-
gister it would be visited upon him in the same way as if he
hail voted for the Liberals, his landlord being determined that
all who rent- d under him should vote with him. This man

The Earl of RIPON said that the question resolved it-
self into this—Was there, or was there not, a case of finan-
cial necessity, calling for the impositio❑ of an Income-tax ?
'l he Government admitted that the tax was objectionable,
but they contended that there was an invincible necessity for
it. If they were to re-impose the house-tax and the assessed
taxes, he telt convinced that they would not get an amount
sufficient to meet the deficiency, assuming even that the re-
impo•_ition of the tax would not diminish the employment of
horses, servants, and carriages. The Noble Lord who had
spoken last disputed the necessity, and seemed to think that
if they let things alone all would come right in time. He did
not dispute that if the detieiciency were made good the revenue
would ultimately regain its elasticity ; but in the
meantime the deficiency must be made good, and
how to make it good was the question. His Noble
Friend, in dealing with the question of necessity, took
no notice of the great increase within the last seven years
of that portion of our expenditure in those services over which
Parliament exercised a control, viz , the naval and military
service. The increase of the expenditure in these services
during the last six years was as much as three-and-a-half
millions sterling He (Earl Ripon) had always thought it was
necessary to revise the whole system of fiscal regulations to
extend and open the sprirgs of commeree, and though they
might affect to des ise the tariff, ci.uld assure them that
people out of that House telt very differently on the subject, •
and were well convinced that it was an excellent measure in its j
principle and its details The .Noble Marquis had stated that
the Income-tax was the most unpopular one which could be
proposed ; if ihat were the case, the Government had shown
their sincerity in proposing a measure which was unpopuhir,
but which at the same time they thought was the best which
could be devised.— ( Question, question.)
The question was t hen put front the Woolsack, when strangers
were ordered to withdraw..
The House divided, and there appeared,— •
For the Amendment
Against it
Majority against the Amendment
The Bill was then read a third time and passed

Their Lordshii s adjourned at Twelve o'Clock till to- morrow
(this day) at Four o'Clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 21.
TM: BALLOT.

Mr. WARD On continuation from our Third Edi-
tion of last night) said---That out of the returns for
Englnuit, Ireland, and .;cotland, no less than
fifty-five were impeached by petition, those
fifty-five petitions allecting no less than seventy-eight
seats. Every gentleman in that House knew erfectly
Novell that a great many cases of N% hole:411e corruption
escaped notice altovater, as there n ere not sufficiently
clear parties in the different places to petition
for an inquiry. Its he said, there were fifty-five peti-
tions against seventy-eight seats. They must not forget
that in minty of the Committees there were special Re-
ports. Now what did those sp Tial Reports say ? The
Southampton Ceintuittee, said James Bruce, Esq., com-
monly called Lord Bruce, and C. Martin, Esq., were by
their agents guilty of bribery at the election for the
borough of Southaniptine From the evidence it appeared
that gross treating and bribery had existed ; that the
sum expended was 3,000 L, far exceeding the legal
charges, and deserved the consideration of that House.
He found in the case of Ipswich that Rigby
Wilson, Esq., and George Rennie, Esq., were by
their agents guilty of bribery at the last election for the
borough of Ipswich ; the Committee also resolved unani-
mously that they should recommend to the House to
su-punch the issuing of a new writ until the evidence
should have been taken into consideration by the House.
In Sudhary he found that it was unanimously resolved that
gross and systematic bribery had existed, and the Committee
recommended the disfranchisement of the borough. In Lyme
Regis he found another instance of gross bribery. From the
evidence it appeared that corrupt practices had some time
prevailed. hi- found that in Newcastle-under-Lyme, J. Q.
Harris, Esq., was guilty of bribery by t.is agents, and that a
system prevailed of giving to voters bread moneys dinner-
money, and market-money. The withdrawal of a petition was
no evidence of the innocence of the parties, as had appeared
from the Committees on the Harwich, Nottingham, and other
elections. To such an extent was the system of compulsion
carried, that the withdrawal of e petition was synonymous with
a confession of guilt. He could point out many cases which
had escaped the notice of the Hon. Member for Bath. It was
said that the same practice occurred last Parliament with re-
spect to Norwich, whets there was one gentleman of each party
elected, but that, was no extenuation of the offence, however it
might warrant inquiry. hese were the evils they had to grapple
with at the present moment, and unless they were checked, they
would progress with frightful rapidity. His belief was that
they must go back to first principles if they wishefl to
have any principle at all. The first principles in voting
were that the voter should be a free agent. The State
was bound to secure the voter the power of record-
ing his own unbiassed vote—by that he meant unbiassed
by the nation, or corrupt influence. He did rot believe that
was to be eccompllshed by open voting. lie affirmed that by
the present system of voting there never could be a lair and
five electron, as one party was coerced and the other bribed.
This was only one vortical of the evil, and it was useless to
app y a remedy to one and leave the other untouched. The
lion. Member for Pomfret, who appeared to have an amiable
leaning towards corruption in its mildest form, conies forward
and boasts that he is the friend of the poor man. He stood up
as the poor man's friend, at d argues that though it might be
possible to put a step to this species of corruption, yet, he adds,
with a great deal of truth, they would have another kind—
namely, p. litical con uption, in full action. He argued that if
a million of money has: been sent down from the upper among
the lower classes at the last election, it must at feast have con-
Jerre(' a great deal of material happiness, and that, if any enact-
ment took it away it must cause proportionate misery. The
Legislature night reduce the amount t xpended, but would not
check corruption. He could not but regret that the lion. Alem-
her had lent. such sentiments the sanction of his talents.
He remembered an election tor the West Riding of Yorkshire,
when the canvass was carried on with the greatest activity.
The Duke of Leeds hal.pened to die just as the canvass was
beginning; of course decency requited a certain time before
the canvass could be resumed; nobody could venture to sup-
pose what the opinions et the present Duke should Le, anti his
tt nants remained uncauvassed. During the contest he (Mr.
W.) was walking with a friend of his in Sheffield, when they
met a Yorkshire yeoman. The gentleman who was with him
(Mr. W.) asked the yea man if they had yet got their orders,
and the countryman replied that they had received orders to
be yellows. lhat was to vote for Lords Alorpteh and Milton.
uch was the state el subserviency of the English voter. He
recollected another case that had occurred at the same time in
Wigtoeshire, in Scotland. Parties were known to be equally
belenecd, and for upwards if three weeks Lord Stair was made
the object of the bitterest attacks by all the Conservative papers
for having purchased an estate on which resi led thirty voters,
whose votes would turn the scale. L. rd Stair had happened
to be negotiating the purchase of the estate for some time pre-
viously, and it was then brought to a term:natien. A remark-
able letter was written by a weal proprietor of the county, and
read at the hustings, and it was stated then by Air. Murray
that the coercion of the Tory gentry went beyond anything
which had been known in England. He challenged an answer
to his statement, an ino person dared to contradict him. The
letter was addressed to his Hon. Friend, the Member or
Cockermouth, and it spoke of the system of intimidation and
coercion as being worse than what was practised with regard to
the slaves on the coast of Africa. He (Mr. Ward) d.d not
mean to say this system was practised by Lord Stair in that
contest e but he would say that discussions of that description
in the face of the people of England were disgraceful. He did
not mean to say that such things were confined to the counties;
on the contrary, he believed that immorality of a worse descrip-
tion took place in the towns, which were more.confined, and
where the circumstances of each voter were well known, and
where exclusive dealing and published lists of voters—published
even at the Universities—were put into eperation to ruin the
refractory voters. The Report of the Intimidation Committee
teemed with facts of this description ; and was it not disgraceful
that while they saw inquiries instituted to investigate them,
they knew that five or six persons on each side of the HOUSe held
the strings of the machine of cot ruption, and put all the works in
motion ? He thought the Ballot, and n•thing less. would put an
end to bribery and the other corrupt practices which had taken
rlace. With regard to other remedies, bad habits would get
the better of the best law, but when the law failed, if the
Ballot were adopted, that remedy would step in with its
silent efficacy to correct the abuse which the law could not
reach. Make the voter aware that the Ballot was his safe-
guard, and the whole mischief of corruption would be ended,
because the puhlieation of the vote was the indispensible
ecnditiun of either punishment or reward. They would not
runish the voter upon suspicion. They would not inflict a
penalty on him li sup pe
knew
he
, ion that
mighthe
be m
had notet fulfilled
hits Hwithld
histhe
usual sophisms, that to give a vote contrary to the promise
which was made of it was immoral, dishonest, and un-
English. Rut, on the other hand, it could not be morality
to vote against one's cete.cience, or be brew-beaten to vote
in a certain way.—( Hear, hear.) He knew it was not
fashionable to
.say that the Ballot would insure secrecy. It
might not do eo, but this he was certain of, that it would put
a atop to intimidation, and would give a more healthy ap-
pearance to public opinion, and would make canvassing an
honourable understanding between man and man,
and not a compound of cajolery and trickery.—(Hear.)
The argument that the Ballot wote'd destroy the legitimate in-
fluence of property was as unfounded as any of the others. He
believed that not a particle of the legitimate influence of pro-
perty would be destroyed by secret voting, but then that in-
fluence must be applied in a different manner. The whole
subject had been done so much justice tee by Mr. Bailey, that he
would read an extract—the last he should read to the House.
He stated that the tegher classes had become so accustomed to
tl.e exercise of power over the rest of the community, that they
now looked te on it as a natural and even a salutary power.
New. no man who knew the long list which the English
aristocracy had added to the names of our most emieent
statesmen and orators, would say that there were not
brilliant exceptions to Mr. Bailey's description? But if the
effect of the Ballot, as Mr. Bailey believed, would be to
compel the aristocracy of this country, as a class, to forego
th se adventitious ad. antages which they now possessed, and
to throw themselves, as the Right Hon. Baronet said the other
right that he threw himself, upon the reason and intelligence
of the cammunity for support, who would deny teat that was
,‘ a censun.matiot: devoutedly to be wished?"—( Hear, hear.)
He was not one of those who wished to shut out wealth and.
rank in this country from their legitimate share of influence.
He thought with Mr. Mills, that the business of government,
under a representative system, was, in effect, the business of
the rich. But then he wanted to see the rich maintain their
influence by fair means—by means which would raise their
character as well as that of the community, instead of de-
basing and degrading.both. A change in the present system
was inevitable. It was impossible to exaggerate its evils or its
dangers. If it were continued for a few years more, he be-
lieved that it would waste and destroy in this country all that
onstitutes the strrneh of, and ail that gives vitality to, poplar

actually went so far as to take physic to disable him from
voting—(Laughter)—but when the time for polling ar-
rived, the Tory doctor (feeling his pulse) told him he
was in good health and compelled him to vote —( Hear, hear.)
He hoped his Hon. Friend would join with him in endeavour-
ing to put down these parties by voting for the Ballot.
Captain LAYARD said that at the last election for
Devonport, there was a feeling in the borough that the
Liberal party would not succeed on account of a dis-
agreement amongst themselves, and the two parties agreed to
decide the question between them by Ballot. The brother-in-
law of the !tight Hon. Baronet and Mr. Leech, walked arm-
in-arm to the place, and they voted by Ballot. No man could
say there would be more intimidation and corruption if the
system of the Ballot were in operation. If the Noble Lord
c..uld do away with corruption he could not do away with in-
timidation. He (Captain Layard) should therefore heartily
support the motion.
Mr. CHRISTIE was surprised that the Members on the
opposite side had not risen to explain the votes they intended
to give on this subjeet.—(Hear, hear.) He hoped he might
be Cs cused for rising on the same side, fur in doing so he would
have to pay a penalty by encountering difficulties, in conse-
quence of rising after the able speeches just addressed to the
1-louse. It might not be altogether unprofitable to attempt to
clench the able recital of the existing evils which the House
heard from the Hon. Member for Bristol. He would confine
himself to one or two points of the question. First of all, he
would ask the House what they proposed to do by the Ballot,
and how they expected it to do what they proposed by it. With
regard to what they proposed by the Ballot, it was the
hope of its advocates that it would diminish the existing
evils, not that it would entirely do away with, but
only diminish them, and this to a great extent. It wes a
favourite argument of those who opposed the Ballot
that it would net put an end to bribery and intimidation, and
that various ways would be found to punish the voter for giving
a particular vote, or, at all events, that he could be bribed to
go out of the way. But, granting this, it only proved that
bribery and intimidation would be !flitch more difficult, else
why resort to such clumsy expedients ? 'I lie diminution of
those evils being the object of the Ballot, how was that object
to be obtained? Now, suppose a person to have voted in a
particular manner, and to be brit): d so to do, the person who
bi ibed would not be able to tell but his money was thrown
away, and in that state of uncertainty would he be likely to
give a bribe ? He asserted that the Ballot would prevent the
evils of intimidation and bribery that at present existed. Such
being the case, be thought the Ballot ought to be established.
The esent system lowered public feeling, and demoralised even
the higher classes themselves. Instead of giving bread to the
staring thousands of the people, it should be their first duty
to put a stop to the fast-spreading pestilence which was de-
oying the truth, honour, and manliness of the lower
orders of the country. The Income-tax arid the tariff ought
Lot to have been made the cause of postponing the considera-
tion of a moral question.—( Hear, hear.) If those measures
were less exceptionable, and snore likely to do good,
than they were, still these promises of material prosperity
might be fulfilled, for a people from whom all the internal ele-
ments of greatness had departed, and to whom this prosperity
would only be so much gilt and tinsel to hide the filth and
rot tenn, ss within.

Ir. VERNON HARCOURT opposed the motion. If the
Ballot was adopted the landlords would keep a strict watch over
their tenants for the purpose of ascertaining their political ten-
dencies, and the Jesuit would bit a constant series of hypocrisy
no the one side, and of jealousy and suspicion on the other.
He believed that those who clamoured most loudly for the
Ballot were jobbers who were desirous of being more highly
comren,ated for their votes. He thought the entire commu-
nity would he exposed to the greatest demoralisation by the
Ballot, inasmuch as there would be a check put upon freedom of
dLotts-ion.

' Captain BERKELEY said, whenever Ike question of vote
by Ballot had previously been discussed, he had given it his op..
position. He had done so because he believed that public
opinion was the best correction of oppression, but since he found
that public opinion was not to have its due control, and the
voter was not tp be allowed to vote as he pleased, ho thought
he had good reason for changing bis opinion.—(Hear, hear.)
The Ju, ges of the country had declared bribery te be the abo-
mination of the land; and, when that was the case, he again
thought that he was justified in changing his opinion on this
subject.
Captain BERNAL said the Right Hon. Baronet, the
Member for Dorsetshire, had designated a former Government
as a shabby Government, but he would ask what could be more
shabby than for a Government to treat such a question as the
Ballot as it had been treated by the Govornment that night?—
( Hear, hear.) It had been the practice with many to speak as
if the Reform Bill was a boon. There were many who looked
upa,n the franchise solely in a pecuniary point of view—by such
the I3aLot must be regarded with dislike. There was, however,
a very large class of persons who viewed the franchise with very
different feelings; and rffir them he claimed the protection afforded
by the Ballot. It had been remarked by one who was once a
Member of that House, and who was now an eminent Judge in
Equity, that so long as the poor possessed that which the rich
desired to obtain, so long there would be intimidation and
bribery.
Mr. M. MILNES said, if the Hon. Member for WyCombe
had been longer in the noose, he would have been aware that
her Majesty's Government never lose to speak in a great
debate till late in the evening. He agreed with Hon. Gentle-
men oposite in saying that this questicn ought not to pass
under a one-sided debate; but the question had been must fully
debated on former occasions, when the Hon. Gentleman
who first brought the subject before the House Was then a
Member of that House, and whose absence they must all regret,
on account of his great abilities. With respect to the question
of bribery, no legislative enactment would prevent it, and the
only means to adopt with respect to it were those proposed by
him, and then
the Noble Lord opposite, to visit the offence with a moderate
but certain penalty. Bribery had existed in that very House.
They all knew the rumour respecting Sir Robert Walpole who
pisiaaseesiaidsutom ionfvmiteonfelyono.nMeeamchbcprlsatteo. dinei hwei th
tim
r.
Milnes) be-
listed that the people were such slaves as they were said to
be, he could not refuse the remedy of the Hon. Member for
Sheffield. But he did not believe it. He did not believe that
bribery existed to such an extent as was a11eged......(0h, oh. )
He believed that less money was spent at the last election than at
previous elections.—(Oh, oh.) Were not the Earl of Fitz-
wilham, Lord Gainsborough, and Lord Grey, de-
feated in their own immediate neighbsurhoods, not
by bribery, but by the overwhelming torrent of public
feeling ? He fully believed that if the last election had been
conducted upon the bad ptinciples alleged by Hon. Gentlemen
opposite, he should agree with them in saying that the majority
in that House were not the representatives of publie feeling.
The exposures which had taken place in that House he re-
gretted, for he believed that would not result in public good.
If the late non. Member for Bridport had stiffest ed by it, he
have the effect of throwing
(Mr. Milnes) was sort y for it. He was surprised that the day
before the Noble Lord intended to bring his Bill forward for
the purpose of exposing bribery, that the Hun. Member for
grounds wnatever, but upon
Sheffield should bring forward a motion fur the purpose of con-
cealing bribery. The Ballot Would
the great basis of corrup-
tion
greater influence on the resident landowners. He believed the
He did not landed aristocracy would gain by the eliane,e•
op-
pose this question upon any party
ssith the Ballot and other
principle. The only question was, would the Ballot limit that
intimidation, which was, after all,
? He saw that in America,
aptliances,still intimidation existed to a great extent. He did
not say that if bribery and intimidition went on increasing, he
might not come to vote for the Ballot himself.—( Laughter and
cheers.) He believed that the Ballot was vehcice of evils.
think the exigency
M the present moment he did not existed.
He did not believe that the people of England would barter their
' *rotes for a tail ag conk t, for they knew they found their re- 1

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JUNE 22, 1842,

ward in public opinion. A man that was doing wrong would
never be very careful as to bow far that wrong went. He,
therefore, again said that be did not think that the exigency ex-
isted for this organic change. The people did not want it,
and, therefore, in that respect it was un-English. If they
granted this change it would lead to another change more
disastrous to the Constitution.
Mr. C. PONSONBY could rot agree with the Hon. Gen-
tleman, for he fully believed that the exigency did exist in a
great degree. All the remedies to put down corruption and
bribery heretofore tried had failed, and the Ballot was the only
remedy which would strike them down.—( Hear, hear.) A
very laudable desire was manifested on both sides of the House
to inquire into the bribery at the late elections, and if they
wished to follow up these inquiries and give them full effect,
they must adopt the Ballot.—( Hear. )
Mr. BYNG said that, as the present was a public question, he
could not give a silent vote. in the first place he thought the
Ballot would essentially alter the character of Englishmen.—
( Ministerial cheers ) He (lid not think it would be of any
service to them, because he did net think Englishmen would
ever conceal their real feelings and opinions.—(Hear, hear. )
They were from their infancy brought up to love truth and
wa!pta est veritas et preredebit.—( Hear, hear.) Both before
anti a to the election they would live in a state of misery,
afraid to open their mouths to their best friends. It would
also prevent canvassing, and he confessed he always
wished to meet the constituent body face to face,
arid give them an account of his conduct.—( Hears hear. )
He remembered on one important question, when the " No
Popery" cry was raised. he was near losing his election for
want of bring able to meet his constituency. But a delay of
ten days was occasioned by the death of one of the cant.i•
dates, who got wet in his feet, arid died.—( Laughter.) And
that enabled him to go amongst the constituency, and ex-
Vain to the Dissenting voters, that if the Catholics were sa-
crificed this week, they would be sacrificed the next. He
said to them " Do you think you ate loved more than the
Catholics?" There were no Puseyites there.—(Much laughter. )
And thus, in consequence of being able to explain himself to
the electors, he was declared unanimou-ly elected by the
Sheriff ; and ever since he was fond of conversing and explaining
his votes to his constituents.— ( Laughter, and hear, hear.)
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL said that he considered the lion.
Member for Sheffield had an advantage in bringing forward
this subject after the sceoes et the late election, because it
proved thet men did not take up this question from any theo-
retical notions of abstract excellence, but as a practical amend-
ment of eiisting evils.—( Hear, hear.) The public were of
that opinion now, and their opinion was reflected in the
House. Ile agreed with the Hen. and Venerable Member for
Middlesex, that all the feelings of the country would, on
the first view, be against them, anti he could under-
stand how nee like him, - who was the popular Member
of a great constituency, and who had so dsservedly
earned the respect, not merely of persons of his own pi litical
opinions—( Hear, hear)—but also of those who were opposed
to him---( Hear, hear)—would wish to see the enthusiasm of a
crowd of supporters hurrying to the pull to record their votes
in his favour; hut inwas nut every county which could boast
of such a Member—( Hear, hear)—nor every Member that
could boast of such a constituency. The theory of the Con-
stitution was, that every man's vote was free; but that was
completely overborne in prae tice. With regard to intimidation,
lie bad tio doubt the Ballot would put an end to everything of
that kind. Every influence by means of opinion would not be
got rid of, nor did he think it ought. The influence of the
Roman Catholic elerg.yreen in Ireland, and the application of
the No-Popery cry in England, could not be put an erd to
by the Ballot. Nothing but the diffusion of intelligence and
enlightenment would get rid of influence of this description.
'1 he Ballot, after all, was a question of principle—not a mecha-
nical question.—( Hear, hear.) Recognise the right of the
voter to vote as he pleased, and be would soon have opinions of
his own. If the voter had no.. opinions of his own, it was be-
cause he did not consider the vote his own. 'I he Ballot he
therefore thought would be a great improvement ou the present
sy-tem, and he should. therefore, support it.
Lord J. MANNERS wished to know whether the Ballot,
if adopted, was to be forced down the throats of those who did
net I.ke it—who, he believed, comprised the greater number of
the electors of the country?—(Cries of " Oh, oh.") There
was no excitement whatever, at prt sent, in the country in
favour of the I3allot. He thought this was an insuperable ob-
jection to the plan, and the remedy for it was just as insuper-
able. They must first poll the constituencies for or against the
Ballot by open votes, anti how were they to do this? If they
could not do this, what became of their frequent appeals to
public opinion, of their vox popish, sox dei?
Mr. SHIEL said he was fully aware that it was more than
chilli:nit to give novelty or freshness to a subject that had un-
dergone such repeated discussions, particularly when it had
been treated by men of distinguished talent, and introduced so
ably as it hail been by his Hon. Friend the Member for Shef-
field. If it were tueumbeut on those who took a share
in this debate to imi art to it that interest which was
only to be derived from new and refined speculations,
he tor one should not try to dos(); but so far from this question
being one that afforded them a theme for dexterous disputation,
it appeared to hint that a great And simple question was
rather impaired titan advanced by any exhibitions of sophistry
and acutenesss. Where great and manifest abuses t xisted,
abuses not only cal able of proof, but of which the evidence
amounted to demo nstration, where powerful facts could be so
readily advanced, sustaining the proposition of his Hon. Friend,
it was far better to revert to arguments which might hare been
producad before, more especially because he remarked that it
was by repeated appeals to the sense of justice on the part of
the peopla of England that the public opinion of
Englishmen was tOrmed, and the Ballot, if it was to be
carried at all,' was to be carried as all the other great
changes they had witnessed had been achieved ; those changes
had been accomplished by a strenuous reiteration of some
great truths anti important considerations upon the public anti
upon parties. lie therefore made no sort of apology for re-
vertiog in the very first instance to some very striking cireurn-
stancee which had taken place with respect to the Ballot at the
time the Reform Bill was first introduced.—(Hear.) It ap-
peared to him that in the history of the Ballot—that the histori-
cal part of the question—was a matter deserving both of know-
ledge and censioerai ion It seemed to him that it was of some
importance to remove the impression that some sort of contract
was made that the Reform Bill should be final and conclusive
as against the Ballot.—( Hear, hear.) He thought the Noble
Lord the :Member for London had been subjected to a great
deal of misrepresentation by these who had affirmed that lie
considered the Reform Bill as a sort of monument of legisla-
tion, where lie was " to set up his everlasting rest."—(Cheers.)
He had ale-ass understood the words of the Noble Lord in a
sense entireiY different to that which had been ascribed
to them.—( Hear. ) It had been proved to demonstration
that no such engagement had been entered into by the Mem-
bers of the Government of Lord Grey. They did not say that
the franchise should be extended, but neither did they say that
the mode in which that franchise should he exercised should
net be changed—( Hear, hear)--end he should proceed to lay
those proofs [More the House. In 1533, Lord Durham made
a most important statement ; it was this—that a Committee of
five individuals was appointed by Lord Grey's Government, for
the purpose of ft amiug the plan of the Reform Bill, and that the
Committee was formed of Lord Durham, the Right Hon.
Baronet opposite (Sir J. Graham), Lord Brougham, the Noble
Lord the Member for London (Lord J. Russell), and Lord
Dungannon. The statements of Lord Durham on that oc-
casion attracted a great deal of notice, because it was deemed a
twist important fact, that five persons belonging to the great
Vi'hig party should, in !331, have taken a view with regard to
the Ballot, so different from that which was afterwards
admitted.—( Hear, hear.) The speech made by Lord
Dui ham at Gateshead, drew some observations from
Lord Brougham, at the dinner given at Edinburgh to Earl
Grey ; and in July 1537, the Noble Lord, the Member for
London, stated that he had the authority of his Sovereign to
disclose whatever had taken place with respect to the Eeform
Bill, anti the question now under consideration. He stated that
the report drawn up by that Commit tee recommended that the
deration of Parliament should be shortened to five years, at the
sante time recommending that the votes of electors should be
taken by the Ballot.—( Ch. ers. ) The Noble Lord, he per-
ceived, agreed with him as to this version of the statement the
Noble Lord then made. 1 hat it was made, was beyond all
doubt ; the Noble Lord never disguised the matter; on the con-
trary, he came forward and put the public in possession of all
the 'farts.— ( Hear, hear.) At the same time, he mentioned
that when that report was laid before Lord Grey's Government
it was not ado ted, but it was agreed that, upon the question of
the Ballot, no decision should be taken one way or the other; and
afterwards, n hen the Noble Lord brcught forward the Reform Bill
in 1531, he said, at the conclusion of the speech with which
he introduced the measure, that on the question of the Ballot
no expression of opinion was pointed out. The Hon. Mem-
ber for Montrose then said he was glad to find that the Ballot
was a reserved question, as he was willing to see how the
Reform Hilt worked before the measure of the Ballot was
adopted by the Government. How then could they call that a
final measure when the question of the Ballot was left un-
touched by it ?—( Hear, hear.) These were the nansactions
which took place when the Reform Bill was introduced ; let
him follow up those transactions When the Chandos clause was
proposed, what was the course Lord Althorp adopted? He
said the clause was in principle at variance with the true spirit
of the Reform Bill, and he added that one great objection he
entertained to it was that its adoption would ultimately afford
strong reasons for the Ballot.—( Hear, hear.) He found these
three facts combined ; first, that before the Reform 13111 was
brought in the Committee who formed it approved
of the Ballot ; next that when it was introduced
into the House of Commons the Noble Lord, by whom
it was brought in, declared that the Ballot was a reserved ques-
tion ; and thirdly, in the progress of the Bill, the leader of the
House of Commons, the present Earl Spencer, declared he con-
sidered the principle of the Bill invaded, that an alteration had
been grafted into it, by which its principle had been invaded,
and by which a powerful argument would be afforded why the
Ba let should be adopted. Now let them follow the Bill from
the Commons into the House et Lords; Lord Wharneliffe is
now a Member of the Cabinet, and the opinion expressed by the
Noble Lord—

Lord STANLEY intimated across the table that the Hon.
and Learned dember had adverted to hose facts before.
11r. SHIEL admitted that he had alluded to these facts in
1h39 ; but he had no opportunity of showing them what was
the effect of the Chandos clause. Did it follow that because he
had adverted to them before, they were not again to engage the
attention of the public ? He was proceeding to say, that at
the time Lord Wharnchffe made that speech, he was not amem-
bet- of the Cabinet ; but now be was a member of the Cabinet,
of which the leading Reformers of that period were now also
part.—( Hear.) He stated that the adoption of the Chandus
clause, if the landlords exercised their power under it, would
prepare the way fur the vote by Ballot. Lord Grey also, the
head of the Government, complained that the character
of the Fill was mutilated and destroyed; that
the adoption of the clause would augment the
power of the gentry of the country, and would ultimately form
the most powerful argument in favour of the adoption of the
Ballot. 11'hen all these circumstances, then, had taken place,
it was most unfair for any one to assert that the Reform Bill
was meant to be a sort of stoppage to the Ballot. By the
Reform Bill the counties were divided into sections, and the
number of the Members was increased ; more power was
thus given to individuals of large property in that locality ;
and Earl Grey predicted that it that power were ex-
ercised the people would endeavour to reduce it
within legitimate limits. The same position was laid
doer n by the Noble Lord the Member fur London in
tl e review he published of the state of the country. There
was not a gendetran in that House who bad not acknow-
letlged that ext.' naive intimidation had been practised. It
w,s acknowledged by the lion. 31embcr for Pontefract, who
said if it were continued, it would be his solemn duty to vote
for the Pallot. He need not then dwell on this point ; it was
on all sides admitted. The question then was, What was to be
done? The Right lion. Baronet at the head of the Govern-
ment had again and again declared his abhorrence of intimi-
dm ion, and had repudia'ed, and extorted, a retractation of the
ehrsge, that he had been guilty of it to some individuals sup-
pesed to be independent of him in Tamworth. Holding those
cannons, was it not incumbent on him to devise some means
for putting down intimidation? He had, to his great credit,
given his accordance to the effectual measure introduced by his
Noble Friend against bribery, but nothing had been done
against intimidation. The Right Hon. Baronet had declared
that it was not the interest of his party to defend bribery, and
surely he would not allow that it was the interest of his party to
4ene au rage intimidation ?—( Hear, hear.) Let them see whether
the Ballot would put a stop to intimidation ; the three
chief objections made to the Ballot were, that it would
nut secure secresy, that it would diminish the in-
Auenco of property, and that it was of an immoral
and guilty character. These objections were rather ireca.sistent
with each other, for if it was not an efficient instrument for se-
'err. ;eerecy, it could not be an efficient means of demoralisa-
wu not
ta. objeCtion that it would not ieo+4o tecros7