The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-06-24 00:00:00

Sir G. COCKBURN stated that he had ascertained, beyond
all question, that the seamen of the Pique were not paid
in light sovereigns. Every sovereign was weighed before
given to them. It did happen, however, that the tradesmen
of the town demanded one shilling each for changing them
on the ground of their being short of weight. They brought
them back in consequence, but were perfectly satisfied on
seeing them weighed in their presence. The workmen in
the dockyard were also paid in coin weighed before it was
given to them.
In reply to a question from Mr. FOSTER,
Mr. GLADSTONE said it was doubtful if there was any
real scarcity of silver coin ; but if there was, steps should be
taken to supply the deficiency.
In reply to a question from Mr. HUTT,
Sir R. PEEL said that negotiations had not yet been
brought to a conclusion respecting the Stade duties. A
proposition had recently been made to the Hanoverian go-
vernment on the subject, to which as yet no reply had been

received.
In reply to a question respecting the invention of Captain

`Varner. -
Sir R. PEEL stated that he had caused every facility to be
offered to Captain Warner for the purpose of testing the
value of his invention. but the gallant captain had required
some conditions which could not be acceded to.

Vv
The Bribery at Elections Bill was read a second time, and
ordered to be committed on Tuesday next.
Mr. WARD then brought forward his motion—" That in
all future elections for members of parliament, the votes be
taken by the way of ballot." The hon. member admitted
that the two great parties in the country were open to the
charge of bribry, the only difference being one of degree,
and not of principle. Bribery had recent?), got to such a
height that some remedy must be adopted to put an end to
practices which were a disgrace to the country; and no
remedy could be so effective as the adoption of the ballot.
Freedom of government should be tne first principle of re-
presentative government, but amongst the rural tenantry of
England freedom of election was utterly unknown. The
ballot was said to be unmanly and un-English, but it would
prove a corrective, not only to bribery and intimidation, but
to various other malpractices which now prevailed. The
hon. member concluded by calling on the house to support
his motion, and to forego the illegitimate influence always
derived from open voting.
Mr. H. BERKELY seconded the motion, and asked, if the
ballot was unmanly and un-English, what could the present
system be termed? Electors were influenced by the" screw."
but of all " screws" the banker's was the most potent. In
the country, however, the electors were driven to the poll
like a herd of cattle to market. He stated, as an illustration
of this assertion, various occurrences which had taken place
at the last election for Bristol, and appealed to his colleague
as to the correctness of his statement.

Captain LAYARD and Mr. CHRISTIE supported the mo-
tion.

Mr. V. HARCOURT opposed the motion, contending that it
would lead to a system of surveillance on the part of the
landlords, and of hypoclisy on the part of the tenants, each
constantly watching and trying to deceive the other.
Captain BERKELEY said, that heretofore he was opposed
to the adoption of the ballot, in the belief that the malprac-
tices complained of would be corrected by the influence of
public opinion. Circumstances had, however, since occurred,
which compelled him to change his opinion, and he would
support the motion, believing now that the ballot was the
only means of pntting down that which Lord Abinger had
judicially designated as " the abomination. of the land."
Captain BERNAL supported the motion, and charged the
government with shirking the question.

Mr. M. MILNES said that it was usual for members of the
government to state their opinions in the early period of such
a debate. He admitted the force the question of the ballot
derived from recent occurrences arising out of the last gene-
ral election, but he still was of opinion that the people were
acquiring a knowledge of the value of their political rights,
and that the malpractices complained of were diminishing,
and therefore there was no pressing exigency for resorting to
such an organic change as that of the ballot.
Mr. C. PONSONBY contended that the adoption of the bal-
lot would tend to raise the character of the country.
Mr. BYNG thought its effect would be precisely the re-
verse, by making hypocrites of the people, teaching them to
conceal their sentiments and actions, and to pay no regard
to the dictates of truth.

Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL supported the motion, as calcu-
lated to produce much benefit, though he by no means
thought it would have the effect of curing all the vices of our
electoral system.
Lord J. MANNERS opposed the motion, and contended
that public opinion was unfavourable to the ballot.
Mr. SHEIL said that the ballot must ultimately be carried
like all other great questions, by the constant repetition of
the truths on which they were based. It would be remem-
bered that at the time of the Reform Bill the ballot was dis-
tinctly understood to be a question left in reserve. It was
said that the ballot would diminish the influence of property,
whereas its real operation would be to act as a bar to the
despotism of property. If it was to be an understood thing
that the tenantry held the franchise in trust for the landlords,
then the exercise of that franchise ought to be open, that the
landlords might be satisfied the trust was not abused ; but if
it were a trust held for the community, the voter should have
protection for the conscientious discharge of the trust reposed
in him. The ballot was the only protection that could be
devised to shield them from the intimidation to which they
were exposed.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM thought that Mr. Sheil had not ac-
curately described what took place respecting the ballot at
the time of the Reform Bill, and contended that that bill was
passed as a bone fide final measure. His opinions on the
ballot were the same as those entertained by Lord J. Russell,
and he was himself an example of the freedom with which
the franchise was at present exercised, for though possessing
considerable influence in Cumberland as a landed proprietor,
and supported by a large number of the other landed pro-
prietors of the county, he was yet defeated by the constitu-
ency he had previously represented. The ballot was opposed
to all the habitudes of the English character, and he hoped
the house would defeat the motion by a large majority.
Mr. MURPHY contended that by the influence of bribery
and intimidation at the last general election, the people of
England had been delivered over, bound hand and foot, to
the aristocracy.
Mr. O'CONNELL contended that the ballot was an honest
measure, and well calculated to correct enormous evils.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the secret committee, of which
Sir James Graham was a member, at the time of the passinc,
of the Reform Bill, had proposed the adoption of the ballot,
and a limitation to the period of the duration of Parliament,
neither of which propositions were adopted by the Cabinet of
Earl Grey. He confessed he still saw great objections to the
adoption of the ballot. The noble lord contended that the
experience of the ballot in other countries, both in ancient
and modern times, was not such as to cause it to be adopted
without the most mature consideration.
Mr. WANLEY would vote for the motion, though he feared
if it should be adopted, with our present constituencies, there
never would be any extension of the suffrage.
Lord WORSLEY supported the motion; and, after a reply
from Mr. Ward, the house divided, and his motion was de-
feated by a majority of 2.9 to 7
The house ender' went intocomofmthiteteneigohnt.the Customs Bill,
which occupied the remai

--•••gi....--

HOUSE OF LORDS.—WEDNESDAY.
The royal assent was given to the Income Tax Bill and se-
veral others.

HOUSE OF COMNIONS.—WEDNESDAY.
The Drainage (Ireland) Bill went through committee.
The house then went into committee ou the Mines and
Collieries Bill.
In the room of the second clause, Lord ASHLEY moved a
clause to the effect that no person under 13 years of age
should be employed in collieries and mines more than 12
hours in each alternate day, and that it should not be lawful