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

tured by our cruisers engaged in suppressing
Ike slave .trade under the provisions of the Act
in 1839 was lodged, and whether it was the
intention of the Government to introduce a Bill to re-
medy the oversight of the Act of 1839, and to divide the
money among the captors ?
Sir R. PEEL said, that a Bill on the subject had been
prepared, and would be speedily introduced. With re-
gard to the other inquiry of the Gallant Officer, he
begged to state, that he (Sir R. Peel) had referred to
the public departments, and had not yet received any
answer. When he received an answer, he would inform
the Hon. and Gallant Officer.
CAPTAIN \VARNER'S INVENTION.
Sir C. NAPIER wished to ask What steps had been
taken with regard to Captain Warner's invention ?
Captain Warner had, he (Sir C. Napier) understood, ex-
pres.scd a desire that Lord Hardwick and Lord Ingestrie
should be appointed on the Commission to investigate
the merits of his invention, and had complained that Sir
Byam Martin and Sir Howard Douglas had demanded
of him that he should make known all his
erets, without having any guarantee given to
Mini that they would not be divulged. Ceptain Warner
further stated that Sir George Murray was fully cog-
nizant of what had taken and that he (Captain
\Varner) was desirous of unbosoming himself to the Right
lion. Baronet—(A laugh)—and that after the merits of
his invention should have been tested, he would leave the
question of compensation entirely in the hands
~/ the Right Honourable Baronet. lie also
stated that, if a three-decker were placed before
him, he could &stroy it immediately. He (Sir C. Napier)
therefore thought that Government ought to ascertain
whether or not Captain Warner was a eharietan.
Sir PEEL said that, since the lat mention of this
subject, three weeks ago, applications had been made by
several individuals to have personal interviews with him
on the subject of socrets which, they stated, were entitled
to the utmost consideration on the partiof the State. He
did not mention that in disparagement of Captain War-
ner's invention. Shortly after his (Sir Robert Peel's)
appointment to office, he had had an opportunity of
,eing the extraordinary effects produced by Captain
Warner's invention, and he signified that he was will-
ing., but only in the regular authorised way, to make ex-
periments with respect to the discovery—that he thought
it rested either with the Admiralty or the Board of Ord-
nance to judge
.of the invention—but that he himself was
wholly incompetent to form a judgment upon it ; that he
must permit to the heads of these departments the charge
of instituting experiments of this kind, He, therefore,
wrote to Sir George Murray, the Master-General of the
Ordnance, to request him to name two officers to whom
no. possible exception could be taken—who had the most
professional knowledge and the greatest practical skill
in gunnery, and everything respecting the destruction
of human life.—(Laughter.) He had also stated that he
thought it very hard that Capt. Warner should be put to
any expense in the course of conducting the experiments,
and proposed that the expense should be borne by the
public. He asked, then, the House, whether or not,
knowing the number of similar applications that had
been made, he could have taken any better course ?
The two gentlemen whom Sir George Murray had
appointed for the purpose of making the experi-
ments were Sir Howard Douglas and Sir T. Hastings,
and he would appeal to any person conversant with those
subjects whether more suitable parties could be selected.
What he thought right was that the experiments be
taken in the first instance, and let them judge of
them afterwards. That was the course which
he would assure the Honourable and Gallant Admiral
was absolutely necessary. With respect to the danger to
human life in conducting these experiments, the Board
of Ordnance would take the greatest precaution to guard
against it. No experiment would be undertaken that
should be attended with danger. That was
the course which he had pursued, and he
would venture to say, there would not be one guinea
left in the Treasury, if they were to give way to
all the suggestions of persons who thought that they
had made discoveries, not only in things pertaining to
the art of war, but to every other art.
After a few words from Sir C. NAPIER the subjec
dropped.

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.
Lord J. RUSSELL did not wish to interfere with the
motion of his Hon. Friend, the Member for Sheffield,
but he trusted that the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, as
the second reading of his Bill for the prevention of
bribery was not opposed, would allow the second read-
ing to be taken sub silentio and name some early day
for the committal of the Bill.
The Bill was then read a second time, and at the
suggestion of Sir Robert Peel, the Committee was fixed
•for Tuesday next.
AFFGHANISTAN. _ .

Mr. MANGLES, referring to the statements of the
Eight Hon. Baronet with respect to the advances made
for the war in China and Affghanistan, wished to know
whether any advances had been made to the East India
Company, for the purposes of the war in Affghanistan
Sir H. PEEL regretted that the Ilon. Member had
not given notice of his question. What he stated was,
that the expenses of the war in Affghanistan required
so much expenditure on the part of the East India
Company, that it was inconvenient for them to be in
advance on account of the war in China ; and it was in
consequence of that that he had proposrd that two sums
of money should be raised to defray the expenses, not
of the Affghanistan but of the Chinese war.
THE BALLOT.

The SPEAKER having called upon Mr. Ward to bring
on his motion with respect to the Ballot,
Mr. BERKELEY and Mr. TiIoRNELY presented peti-
tions from Liverpool and Bristol in favour of the Ballot.
Mr. WARD said that he rose to address the House
with a very sincere sense both of the difficulty and of
the importance of the task he had undertaken of sub-
mitting the question of the Ballot, for the first
time, to the consideration of the present House
of Commons.—(Hear, hear, hear.) When he talked
of the difficulty of the task he did not mean
merely that embarrasment which he felt, and which
every man of inferior powers must feel in at-
tempting to engage the attention of that House to a
question involving so much, both of principle and of de-
tail, as the Ballot ; but he had to contend with the addi-
tional difficulty of ridding his own mind from the
recollection of the admirable ability, the aptitude
of illustration, the closeness of reasoning, and the
high mental and logical powers brought to bear
upon that very question by his Hon. Friend, the late
Member for the City of London, Mr. Grote—a gentle-
man whom all who knew him admitted to havo been an
ornament to that House—(Hear, hear)—however much
they might differ from him in political opinions—
and who had brought to bear upon that
question in the three first Parliaments after
the passing of the Reform Bill the best efforts of
his highly cultivated mind. But while there was nothing
he should so much fear or deprecate as any comparison
between the manner in which he might deal with the
question and that adopted by his Hon. Friend Mr. Grote,
he was encouraged in attempting to follow in his path
by the recollection that time had brought many of his
opinions, as to the consequences of open voting, to the
test ; that what might have been disputed ten years ago,
could not now be denied, and that instead of any reason-
ing upon abstract principles, he had only to ask the House
to provide a remedy for evils now universally admitted, but
in which many • had formerly disbelieved. He could
now appeal to the acts of the House, to the Reports of
the Committees, to the records of its own proceedings,
to those painful and humiliating discussions which had
taken up so much of their time, to show that the ten-
dency of the system of open voting had been progressing
from had to worse, that its effects were most demoralising,
most discreditable to the character of the country in the
eyes of the world, and that a remedy was indispen-
sable, unless they meant to forfeit the confidence, to
alienate the respect, and to outrage the moral feelings
of the people whom they represented.—(Hear, hear,)
They were called the " Bribery Parliament ;" and they
deserved the name. Now, he wished to profess, in the
first instance, that he did not mean to. treat that
question in any way as a party question. He looked
upon it as a question in which all sides of the House had
the same interest, and in bringing it under the considera-
tion of the House, he trusted he was actuated by better
motives and hopes than if he had brought it forward
merely to serve the purposes of a party.
He admitted at once that corrupt influence
had been most unscrupulously appealed to
at the late and at other elections, by Liberals as well as
by Conservatives. He regretted to find that he was
forced to that admission ; and he wished his own party
had always steered clear of corrupt practices at elections
since the year 1833. But that had not been the
case. Both parties had acted upon the same system.
That system was a bad one ; it was one which no honest
man would attempt to justify upon sober reflection, al-
though he might have been tainted with it himself. It
was a system which no well-wisher of his country would
defend. He saw with great satisfaction that there
was at present a disposition manifested on both sides
of the House to look seriously to the dangers which
such a system must entail upon the country. He had
heard bribery denounced by the leaders on both sides in
terms which would seal its fate in six months if those terms
had been sincerely employed. He had a right to
question the sincerity of parties, until he saw
them follow up that expression of their opinions
by practical remedial measures ; and he did con-
sider that the best test of sincerity would be to
renounce that power in which the abuse originated.
He thought he could show that if the power was re-
Nnvoouunldce,dbeof
suoioidnuleyZi
ificuaetende.ing electors, the existing evil
He did not approve of
the policy of having recourse merely to measures
of severity,
.which could. never be impartially applied.
He thought the present time was particularly favourable
to the discussion. The balance of power in the House
was not so nicely distributed that it could be materially
aiVected by any slight change in the machinery of repre-
sentation which would give an advantage to either side. He
was bound, too, to say that the Right Hon. Baronet, the
leader of the party opposite, had shown a proper sense
of respect for his own station, and a sincere desire fairly
to discharge the duties imposed on him. He alluded
more particularly to the course pursued by the Right
Honourable Baronet, with respect to the Notting-
hiam, the Southampton, and the Belfast elections.
:Some of the expressions used by the Right Honourable
Baronet on that occasion lie might be permitted to recal
-to the recollectkit of the House. The Right Honour-
.able Baronet said, considering .the extent to which
bribery had been stated to prevail, he did think,
mid now stated his deliberate o:iinion, that it would not
he for the honour or dignity of the House to interpose
any technical objections to prevent the inquiries.
He said, also, that whoever might be the par-
ties compromised, or whatever might be the interest
they might exert, he would not lend the countenance
r.)! the Government to any suppression of the fullest in-
qttiry into those cases. The Noble Lord, the Member
for Sunderland, who was one of the greatest opponents
of the Ballot, had formerly used as one of his arguments
against it, the improvement that had taken place
in the disposition of the landed proprietors through-
o.lt England, and that they might safely be en-

trusted with their influence over the constituencies. A
singular change must have come over him during
the last election, for, in a speech he de-
livered on that occasion, he found the most

:4 weeping ch.lrgus brought against the landlords.
lie found in that speech the most severe censures against
the landed proprietors of the county of Northumberland,
and he never heard the most strenuous advocate for the

Ballot expose with so cutting a censure the mal-prat•
tices and illegitimate influence of the landlords as
the -Noble Lori. " The Hon. Member then referred to,

and quoted at great length, from the speech of Lord
Ilowick, delivered after the last election for Northumber-
land, in which he complained of the conduct of the
Duke of Northumberland, Lord Tankerville. and Lord
Oesulston, in influencing the tenantry in givit'r their
votes. He (Mr. W.) claimed the vote of the Noble Lord to-
night on the strength of that speech. If he were desirous
to see such practices put an end to, he would vote for
his motion practices which were quite as objec-
tionable, and quite as prevalent, as that of bribing,
and for which he believed no remedy by penal enact-
ment would be an effectual stop. He was glad to see
the Noble Lord in the House.—(Lord Howick had just
come in.) He would hand him the speech he had de-
livered in Northumberland, and with that in his hand
he did not know how he (Lord Howick) could refuse
him his support. Ha now came to the Bribery Bill of
the Noble Lord, the Member for London. The
Noble Lord admitted, as he (Mr. Ward) did, the extent
of the evil, and the necessity of a remedy, and
it only remained for the advocates of the Ballot
to show the superiority of that remedy to the one
the Noble Lord recommended. He (Mr. Ward) had no
great faith in the penal enactments against bribery. They
had for one hundred years back tried such remedies. They
were tried in every shape, but it was impossible by reme-
dies of such a natter,- to touch an evil of such a protean cha-
racter. Now there was no want of stringency in the existing
law, as he said before. But the law had existed upwards
of one hundred years, for he found during the life
of De Foe the same complaint, being 135 years ago.
He said, " We have lately had three Acts of Parliament
to prevent bribery and corruption at elections. We have
the best laws, but they are badly executed." In another
passage, written in 1780, imm diately after an election
had taken place, he said that some people had voted for
money, some from influence, and others from intimidation,
and he believed it was not impossible to debauch this nation
by various kinds of intoxication. With these examples
before him (Mr. Ward) he had little hope, he confessed,
by any legislative enactment that the Noble Lord could
introduce, of getting rid of these practices, which were
privately connived at, but publicly condemned. Now he
would ask any man in that House whether he thought that
system would last ; could it last, at all events, without
producing those effects the Right Hon. Baronet himself
had pointed out in the speech which he (Mr. Ward) had
quoted? There were millions of eyes upon
this system, millions who were excluded from
it, because they told them that a property qualification
was the only criterion of fitness to exercise
the franchise. When they turned their attention to
those who possessed it—when they looked to the 101.
householder, and the 50/. tenant-at-will, as a criterion
and example of that integrity, of that disinterestedness
and patriotism, which a property qualification was sup-
posed to secure, would they not say that the whole
tenantry of England were sunk in a state of almost
serfish submission to their landlords? Such was the
wholesale, open-faced, unblushing profligacy that pre-
vailed at the last election, that out of the returns for
England, Ireland, and Scotland, no less than
fifty-five were impeached by petition, those
fifty-five petitions affecting no less than seventy-eight
seats. Every gentleman in that House knew e erfectly
well that a great many cases of wholesale corruption
escaped notice altogether, as there were not sufficiently
clear parties in the diffetent places to petition
for an inquiry. As he said, there were fifty-five peti-
tions against seventy-eight seats. They must not forget
that in many of the Committees there were special Re-
ports. Now what did those special Reports say ? The
Southampton Committee, 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 Southampton. From the evidence it appeared
that gross treating and bribery had existed ; that the
sum expended was 5,0001., far exceeding the legal
charges, and deserved the consideration of that House.
He found in the case of Ipswich that Rigby
Wason, 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
suspend the issuing of a new writ until the evidence
should have been taken into consideration by the House.
In Sudbury 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. He found ,that in Newcastle-under-Lyme, J. Q.
Harris, Esq., was guilty of bribery by his agents, and that a
system prevailed of giving to voters bread-money, 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 a 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, when there was one gentleman of each party
elected, but that was no extenuation of the offence, however it
might warrant inquiry. These were the evils they had to grapple
with at the present moment, and unless they VI ere checked. they
would progress with frightful rapidity. His belief was that
they must go back to first principles if they wished 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 not believe that
was to be accomplished by open voting. He affirmed that by
the present system of voting there never could be a fair and
free election, as one party was coerced and the other bribed.
This was only one portion of the evil, and it was useless to
apply a remedy to one and leave the other untouched. The
Hon. Member for Pomfret, who appeared to have an amiable
leaning towards corruption in its mildest form, comes forward
and boasts that he is the friend of the poor man. He stood up
as the poor man's friend, and argues that though it might be
possible to put a stop to this species of corruption, yet, he adds,
with a great deal of truth, they would have another kind—
namely, political corruption, in full action. He argued that if
a million of money had been sent down from the upper among
the lower classes at the last election, it must at least have con-
ferred a great deal of material happiness, and that if any enact-
ment took it away it must cause proportionate misery. The
Legislature might reduce the amount expended, but would not
check corruption. He could not but regret that the Hon. Mem-
ber had lent such sentiments the sanction of his talents.
He remembered an election for the West Riding of Yorkshire,
when the canvass was carried on with the greatest activity.
The Duke of Leeds happened to die just as the canvass was
beginning ; of course decency required a certain time before
the canvass could be resumed; nobody could venture to sup-
pose what the opinions of the present Duke should be, and his
tenants remained uncanvassed. 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 yeoman if they had yet got their orders,
and the countryman replied that they had received orders to
be yellows. That was to vote for Lords Morpeth and Milton.
Such was the state of subserviency of the English voter. He
recollected another case that had occurred at the same time in
Wigtonshire, in Scotland. Parties were known to be equally
balanced, and for upwards of three weeks Lord Stair was made
the object of the bitterest attacks by all the Conservative papers
for having purchased an estate on which resided thirty voters,
whose votes would turn the scale. Lord Stair had happened
to be negotiating the, purchase of the estate for some time pre-
viously, and it was then brought to a termination. A remark-
able letter was written by a great proprietor of the county, and
read at the hustings, and it was stated then by Mr. Murray
that the coercion of the Tory gentry went beyond anything
which had been known in England. He challenged an answer
to his statement, and no person dared to contradict him. The
letter was addressed to his Hon. Friend, the Member for
Cockermouth, and it spoke of the system of intimidation and
I coercion as being worse than what was practised with regard to
the slaves on the coast of Africa. He (Mr. Ward) did not
' mean to say this system was practised by Lord Stair in that
contest ; 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 operation 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 corruption, and put all the works in
motion ? He thought the Ballot, and nothing less, would put an
end to bribery and the other corrupt practices which had taken
place. 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 publication of the vote was the indispensible
condition of either punishment or reward. They would not
punish the voter upon suspicion. They would not inflict a
penalty on him on the supposition that he had not fulfilled
Lis part of the contract. He knew he might be met with the
usual sophisms, that to give a vote contrary to the promise
which was made of it was immoral, dishonest, and un-
English. But, on the other hand, it could not be morality
to vote against one's conscience, 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 so, but this he was certain of, that it would put
a stop 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 would 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 to by Mr. Bailey, that he
would read an extract—the last he should read to the House.
He stated that the higher classes had become so accustomed to
the exercise of power over the rest of the community, that they
now looked upon it as a natural and even a salutary power.
Now, no man who knew the long list which the English
aristocracy had added to the names of our most eminent
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
these adventitious advantages which they now possessed, and
to throw themselves, as the Right lion. Baronet said the other
night that he threw himself, upon the reason and intelligence
of the community for support, who would deny that that was
" a consummation 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 strength of, and all that gives vitality to, popular

institutions. Nothing could be permanent or safe under a
rotten system ; and while there could be no nobler object of 1
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 dependent upon the employment, of corruption.
And as the best remedy that his humble judgment could
suggest, 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 thern.elves henceforward upon their public
merit and public services for their standing in public opinion,
and to put an end to all those odious party combinations, 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, That in all future elections for Members of
Parliament, the votes should be taken by Ballot.
Mr. 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,

under 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.
He thought this was not well said, by persons who used the
ballot-box themselves. But, then, it wLs 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 whom u.ed it, if they did not use the ballot to protect them-
selves from any obnoxious character, which was admirably de-
scribed by Sheridan, in the character of Sir Lucius O'Trigger?
Well, if there were Sir Lucius O'Triggers in society, were
there not Sir Lucius O'Triggers in politics infinitely more ob-
noxious ? He came next to the tenantry of great estates. They
had there a high-pressure 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 case of the vote than of the rent. If the tenant
was backward with his vote, they ejected him ; if backward
o 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
independent electors. Those were the yeomen so much boasted
of on all occasions. The fear after all was that unjust influence
would be lost. That was true enough, but just influence
would never be lost by adopting a right and honourable course.
He had been entrusted with several petitions on the subject,
which he looked upon as a brief. Now with regard to the
bribery 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 2,5001. on the part of the Liberal. Now on the
part of the Liberal party 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
Slay 29, 1841, signed by Mr. Fripp, declining an invitation
to stand for the borough, and stating that in the election of 1837
5,0(101. was spent by the Conservative candidates. On the walls,
too, it was openly posted, " Vote blue ! Money no object I"
( Hear.) He had with him a blue book, which was the Tory
poll-book for the election, which was distributed at all the
hotels as the guide-book 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. The screw was not left to
agents, but these were private 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 occupier. He
had a few words to say with respect to his own canvass. In
the year 1837, various parties had expressed a desire to support
him, but were evidently coerced from voting 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 apearance as
a candidate, in what he called " the old cause." He (Mr.
Barclay) then told the friend who accompanied him to put
down the man's name for a plumper. The voter said he could
not give him his support; he burst into teas, and said that he
not only could not vote for him, but that he should vote agaidst
him. He (Mr. Berkeley) was assured by the gentleman who
accompanied him, that if he pressed him he might obtain his
support, 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 and 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. When his Right Hon.
Friend stood for Bristol he felt that he would be compelled to
vote against him, although he was anxious to vote for him. To
avoid voting he neglected to register ; but when the time for
registering 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
had voted for the Liberals, his landlord being determined that
all who rented under him should vote with him. This man
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 L AYARD 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 Right 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
could 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
he excused for rising on the same side, for 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
House. 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 was a
favourite argument of those who opposed the Ballot
that it would not 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 much more difficult, else
why resort to such clumsy expedients ? The 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 bribed so to do, the person who
bribed 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, he thought the Ballot ought to be established.
The present system lowered public feeling, and demoralised even
the higher classes themselves. Instead of giving bread to the
starving thousands of the people, it should be their first duty
to put a stop to the fast-spreading pestilence which was de-
stroying the truth, honour, and manliness of the lower
orders of the country. The ncome-tax and the tariff ought
not to have been made the cause of postponing the considera-
tion of a moral question.—( Hear, hear.) If those measures
were less exceptionable, and more 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
rottenness within.
Sir. 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 result would be a constant series of hypocrisy
on 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
compensated for their votes. He thought the entire commu-
nity would be exposed to the greatest demoralisation by the
Ballot, inasmuch as there would be a check put upon freedom of
discussion.
Captain BERKELEY said, whenever the 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 to be allowed to vote as he pleased, he thought
he had good reason for changing his opinion.—( Hear, hear. )
The Juoges of the country had declared bribery to 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
up on the franchise solely in a pecuniary point of view—by such
the Ballot must be regarded with dislike. There was, however,
a very large class of persons who viewed the franchise with very
different feelings ; and fsr 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 Hoose, he would have been aware that
her Majesty's Government never rose to speak in a great
debate till late in the evening. He agreed with Hon. Gentle-
men opposite in saying that this question ought not to pass
under a one-sided debate; but the question had been most 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
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
was said to invite Hon. Members to dine with him, and then
place a sum of money on each plate. If he (Sir. Milnes) be-
lieved 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 alleged.—(oh, oh. )
He believed that less money was spent at the last election than at
previous elections.—(Oh, oh.) Were not the Earl of Fi'z-
ss ildam, Lord Gainsberough, and Lord Grey, de-
feated in their own immediate neighbourhoods, 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 principles alleged by Hon. Gentlemen
opposite, he should agree with them in saying that the majority
in that House were not the representatives of public 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 Hon. Member for Bridport had stifle' ed by it, he
(Mr. Milnes) was son 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 Hon. Member for
Sheffield should bring forward a motion for the purpose of con-
cealing bribery. The Ballot would have the effect of throwing
greater influence on the resident landowners. He believed the
landed aristocracy would gain by the change. He did not op-
pose this question upon any party grounds whatever, but upon
principle. The only question was, would the Ballot limit that
intimidation, which was, after all, the great basis of corrup-
tion ? He saw that in America, with the Ballot and other
appliances, still intimidation existed to a great extent. He did
not say that, if bribery and intimidation went on increasing, he
might not come to vote for the Ballot himself.—(Laughter and
cheers.) He believed that the Ballot was a choice of evils.
At the present moment he did not think the exigency existed.
e did not believe that the people of England would barter their
votes for a trifling comfort, for they knew they found their re-

ward in public opinion. A man that was doing wrong woo - •
never be very careful as to how far that wrong went. 'He,
therefore, sg-ain said that he 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 not agree with the Hon. Gen-
tleman,
for he fully believed that the exigency did exist in it
great degree. Ail 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 ' z,
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 those 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. ) lie did not think it would be of all
service to them, because he (lid net think Englishmen would
ever conceal their real feelings and opioions.—(Hear, hear.)
They were from their infancy brought up to love truth sou
magna cat reruns et prevalebit.—(Hear, hear.) Both before
and ato the election they would live in a state of wise*
afraid to open their mouths to their best friends. It would
also prevont canvassing, and he confessed he always '
wished to meet the constituent body face to face,
and give them an account of his conduct.—( Hear, hear.)
He remembered on one important question, when the " N°
Popery" cry was raised. he was near losing his election facr ss
want of being able to meet his constituency. But a delay , '. _
ten days was occasioned by the death of one of the eand*,-
dates, who got wet in his feet, and dieu.—(Laughter.) AP` '
that enabled him to go amongst the constituency, and ea' :
plain to the Dissenting voters, that if the Catholics were L. -,
crificed this week, they would be sacrificed the next. II:
.;.-1,
said to them " Do you think you are loved more than tsi'l-,-•
Catholics?" There were no Puseyites there.—(Much laughter') :
And thus, in consequence of being able to explain himself te•-.4
the electors, he was declared unanimously elected by. the 4,4
Sheriff ; and ever since he was fund of conversing and explamiag ~'a
his votes to his constituents.—(Laughter, and hear, hear.).
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL said that he considered the He,.,
'Member for Sheffield had an advantage in bringing forelar.". li;
this subject after the scenes at the late election, because ' '
proved that men did not take up this question from any thee*: ,sa,
retical notions of abstract excellence, but as a practical meet
,:.?.
ment of existing evils.—( Hear, hear.) The public were ~..
that opinion now, and: their opinion was reflected in the`,,
House. He agreed with the Hen. and Venerable Member for''' ,
Middlesex, that all the feelings of the country would,,:°::i
the first view, be against them, and he could tualw-:-.1
stand how one like him, who was the popular Menem`,
of a great constituency, and who had so deserve7st ,g
earned the respect, not merely of persons of his own politi_A-
.4,
opinions—(Hear, hear)—but also of those who were oPln.r"•7:-.ll:is
to hire—( Hear, hear)—would wish to see the enthusiasm 0f;54',..,.4
crowd of supporters hurrying to the poll to record their
.sat_..es'...o
in his favour; but it was not every county which.could 1r7:4:
of such a Member—(Hear, hear)—nor every Member tt""::...,
could boast of such a constituency. The theory of the C!;'_,.!
stit ution was, that every man's vote was free; but that-'
completely overborne in practice. With regard to intimidatiet,„-.•
he had no doubt the Ballot would put an end to everytbing„.
,7'.0
that kind. Every influence by means of opinion would nOt 5",,,,!:
got rid of, nor did he think it ought. The influence of the
Roman Catholic clergymen in Ireland, arid the application a.',l
the No-Popery cry in England, could not be put an (06_1:0'
by the Ballot. Nothing but the diffusion of intelligence asu ~::
enlightenment would get rid of influence of this description•%;
The Ballot, after all, was a question of principle—not a weeb.,..r ~,,
nical question.—(Hear, heal.) Recognise the right of ISA
voter to vote as he pleased, and he would soon have opinionsu-,
his own. If the voter had no:: opinions of his own, it was bel:',
cause he did not consider the vote his own. The Ballot
therefore thought would be a great improvement on the pre.trlt ,f-
-s
s
system, 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 071 is,
not like it—who, he believed, comprised the greater number
the electors of the country ?—( Cries of " Oh, oh.") 'Del
was no excitement whatever, at present, in the country
favour of the Ballot. He thought this was an insuperable es- .ir
jection to the plan, and the remedy for it was just as hopper"
j able. They must first poll the constituencies for or against Os. .'
Ballot by open votes, and how were they. to do this? If til
could not do this, what became of their frequent appeals
public opinion, of their vox populi, vox dei?
Mr. SHIEL said he was fully aware that it was more than .'
difficult to give novelty or freshness to a subject that bad all.; ..
dergone such repeated discussions, particularly when it ~M 1
been treated by men of distinguished' talent, and introduoej f ,
ably as it hail been by his Hon. Friend the Member for N2:1; ;i
field. If it were incumbent on those who took a 01,0:/
in this debate to impart to it that interest which
_...." .4
only to be derived from new and refined speculatclis°
he for one should nottry to dose ; but so far from this ge ,eetl, jd.,
being one that afforded them a theme for dexterous disputiv::W
it appeared to him that a great and simple question ,:e'lt. s'
rather impaired than advanced by any exhibitions of seph,!' 01
and acutenesss. Where great and manifest abases ent,
abuses not only capable of proof, but of which the evia"se?
amounted to demonstration, where powerful facts could b..e.,111
readily advanced, sustaining the proposition of his Hon. Fr:l,-.et
it was far bitter to revert to arguments which might have IV
produced before, more especially because he remarked tht 40',,
was by repeated appeals to the sense of justice on the Par44*4
the people of England that the public opinion-410
Englishmen was formed, and the Ballot, if it waLl'it'ete
carried at all, was to be carried as all the other. It
changes they had witnessed had been achieved ; those ensfle:l
had been accomplished by a strenuous reiteration of *`74:7
great truths and important considerations upon the public 7-0!
upon parties. He therefore made no sort of apology f0r...4,4,
verting in the very first instance to some very striking eircutiii.
stances which had taken place with respect to the Ballot e..,,
time the Reform Bill was first introduced.—(Hear.) s!;:;',, ,i,
geared to him that in the history of the Ballot—that thol4Mae
cal part of the question—was a matter deserving both of ''''o,
ledge and consideration. It seemed to him that it was of
importance to remove the impression that some sort of condall
was made that the Reform Bill should be final and conel,Agi
as against the Ballot.—( Hear, hear.) He thought the 1;;;I-ie
Lord the Member for London had been subjected to & Aisi*
' deal of misrepresentation by those who had affirmed thesV
considered the Reform Bill as a sort of monument of 1 4,8.
tion, where he was " to set up his everlasting rest."—(Chou t$
He had alwats understood the words of the Noble Lord 4LI-111
sense entirely different to that which had been a--o'_ap:O
Ito them.—( Hear.) It had been proved to demons
that no such engagement had been entered into by ther-lV
bers of the Government of Lord Grey. They did not salp`'
the franchise should be extended, but neither did they alloali
. the mode in which that franchise should be exercised, 31,1 '
. not be changed—( Hear, hear)—and he should prow(' tri
those proofs before the House. In 1833, Lord nurhatteaef i
a most important statement; it was this—that a Conlow,_ or '
five individuals was appointed by Lord Grey's Governmen"tlia!"
the purpose of framing the plan of the Reform Bill, and th'ifor::
Committee was formed of Lord Durham, the RightJ:oloi
Baronet opposite ( Sir J. Graham), Lord Brougham, the
iPyi
Lord the Member for London (Lord J. Russell), ow orl:
Duncannon. The statements of Lord Durham on -thalia
cation attracted a great deal of notice, because it was deiroot‘,
most important fact, that five persons belonging to the,,ate;
Whig party should, in 1331, have taken a view with reTose,,,
the Ballot, so different from that which was after VP.:
admitted.—( Hear, hear.) The speech made by 000,
Durham at Gateshead, drew some observations Osi
Lord Brougham, at the dinner given at Edinburgh t, _„° - PS:
Grey ; and in July 1837, the Noble Lord, the Member P'
London, stated that he had the authority of his Soverfsoo,
I disclose whatever had taken place with respect to thet;to-.
Bill, and the question now under consideration. He 0,00,
the report drawn up by that Committee recommended tuetfilt
i duration of Parliament should be shortened to five yearl,„ki 0
' same time recommending that the votes of electors sit; for
1 taken by the Ballot.—(Cheers.) The Noble Lord, nt il
1 ceived, agreed with him as to this version of the staterne"l
Noble Lord then made. That it was made, was bet,,,c4
I doubt; the Noble Lord never disguised the matter; 00 ~ of
s
trary, he came forward and put the public in possessi°"tiOri
the facts.—(Hear, hear.) At the same time, be me°ol9oj
that when that report was laid before Lord Grey's Gor_ellee!i•
it was not adoi ted, but it was agreed that, upon the (1017;;Ki
the Ballet, no decision should be taken one way or the etbri.or,
afterwards, when the Noble Lord brought forward the Reft ALF-
in 1831, lie said, at the conclusion of the speech Wit
he introduced the measure, that on the question of ti: go toro
no expression of opinion was pointed out. The Ho •
bar for Montrose then said he was glad to find that tlestil:
was a reserved question, as he was willing to set.liet4e
Reform Bili worked before the measure of the 7110"
adopted by the Government. How then could they left 5,..;
final measure when the question of the Ballot was 0.0.?
touched by it ?—(Hear, hear.) These were the tran_ea;
which took place when the Reform Bill was introtlocooeS
hlm follow up those transactions. When the Chandos 60. ,J,i;
proposed, what was the course Lord Althorp adopt trio
said the clause was in principle at variance with the echoed
of the Reform Bill, and he added that one great obi if sr,.
entertained to it was that its adoption would ultintatesdtr,4
strong reasons for the Ballot.—( Hear, hear.) He f0t0i33011.5
three facts combined ' • first, that before the ReforeloSi.
brought in the Committee who formed it, tot'
of the Ballot; next that when it was t ssie
into the House of Commons the Noble Lora, "161 iv
it was brought in, declared that the Ballot was a reserlder,;,,
tion ; and thirdly, in the progress of the Bill, the lea_Abeiti
I House of Commons', the present Earl Spencer, deolaTtioaliis
sidered the principle of the Bill invaded, that an alte"-bisF;lo
Leon grafted into it, by which its principle had beet vid„,.
and by which a powerful argument would be afforriwtstillis
Ida let should be adopted. Now let them follow theiro- re
the Commons into the House of Lords; Lord Wieloolli,s,
now a Member of the Cabinet, and the opinion exr :410'
Noble Lord—
Lord tltsr-f .
STANLEY intimated across the table ths,,..- 0.-. ,S.
and Learned Member had adverted to those facts b!..,'"" iSP:#I,
Mr. SHIEL admitted that he had alluded to these, ils
74
11539 ; but he had no opportunity of showing tbet'avolo
the effect of the Chandos clause. Did it follow that
had adverted to them before, they were not again Weso • ser
attention of the public ? He was proceeding to eel,'
the time Lord Wharncliffe made that speech, hew he L.f. OP
ber of the Cabinet ; but now he was a member of t -"Jot
a
of which the leading Reformers of that period Vie.. 0 ,
part.—( Hear.) He stated that the adoption of7Ln. Sr
clause, if the landlords exercised their power oreepeet.o!
prepare the way for the vote by Ballot. Lord tle' iiraA
head of the Government, complained that w. 61; ;IS
of the Bill was mutilated and destrs°j,-0 efte,
the adoption of the clause would 7,06 VA
power of the gentry of the country, and woold:depio° 11l
the most powerful argument in favour of the , tele!,
~
Ballot. When all these circumstances, then, btr; 0/0131.,,5
it was most unfair for any one to assert thate t'':eot.
..4 ...:s
was meant to be a sort of stoppage to th '7i-0-0, 71. 5;
Reform Bill the counties were divided into se' pe1...10
ore Om' er
number of the Members was increased ; '' tbs ortes It
thus given to individuals of large property in 1,1,,ece,i
and Earl Grey predicted that if that pv: re,. n„
re ocised the people would endeavour .tt', 1',3 ~
sit
no inoonitov
within legitimate limits. The same s for
_se
, down by the Noble Lord the Member
_mod' olos' It
the review he published of the state of the country'
not.0011,;t0
was not a gentleman in that House who lie p0v,„,,,,,
ledged that extensive intimidation had beelsoptei_.l7, t?, vise
w as acknowledged by the Hon. Member for,_oo otd. P_,,, be
said if it were continued, it would be his s 0 is 0020 P,...
for the Ballot. He need not then dwell on tia.tost:bois
on all sides admitted. The question then wa'_'d si lbrof lot; tae
done? The Right Hon. Baronet at the hesroace tio 0:4-
ment had again and again declared his abb°,arscttloslstaose
dation, and had repudiated, and extorted, a_re indi*aiejs_ops
charge, that he had been guilty of it to sol'i. 110;06 it
posed to be independent of him in Tamwenoeiseroreat obis
opinions, was it not incumbent on him td° to his geed doptw
for putting down intimidation? He ha
mead
int , beolLisres
given his accordance to the effectual riseas" bad ~.(I.o*- sr
Noble Friend against bribery, but nothing oet nbery, ~ to
Dar a briber /O r
against intimidation. The Right Hon' &fen a )10 lobe
that it was not the interest of his party tO terest
030 e ss twee.
surely he would not allow that it was the 11.0 the . the woo*
eicourage intimidation ?—( Hear, hear. ) ~.idittiot'et its on
the Ballot would put a stop to i ".!",te,:•.% t,00,.
chief objections made to the Ballot ditsi.oo;, on-
not secure secrecy, that it esotn_ss ot , ieerS?so er,
was the. ent ) _lige
fluence of property, and that its
_erera _am or _.4
and guilty character. These objectioen_7,ea jo. 460_1, pot'
with each other, for if it was not an objection "'.eat
itteani 2.4 ' .
ct.
lion,ing sTeheireeocbyieietteioonultdhnaot titbvie
ottunidefrteTecur,s. -- "al—