the motion for a new writ.—Sir F. THESIGER and
Mr. AGLIONBY were also in favour of issuing the writ.
—Mr. T. DUNCOMBE considered that, recollecting the
delinquencies of the borough upon former occasion, the
house would stultify itself by issuing the writ, and that
Harwich was ripe for disfranchisement.—Mr. MASSEY
supported the amendment, and Sir R. INGLIS the
original motion.—Lord J. RUSSELL observed that, as
the chairman of the Harwich election committee, who
was well aware of the circumstances, had stated his
opinion that the writ should issue, he was disposed to
adopt that opinion, though he very much agreed with
Mr. Duncombe, that Parliament could not overlook the
antecedents of this borough. There ought to be further
inquiry by a select committee, or a bill should be
introduced to disfranchise the borough, and he was ready to
vote for either.—After some further discussion. Sir J.
SHELLEY withdrew his amendment, and the original
motion was carried, upon a division, by 247 against 102.

The question of the Ballot was once more brought
forward by Mr. H. BERKELEY, who moved for leave to
bring in a bill to introduce that mode of voting in
parliamentary elections. He adverted to the intimidation
and bribery, the radical evils of our electoral system—a
system of which we affected to be proud, as so manly
and so English—which had been proved to have
prevailed upon a scale unusually extensive at the last
general election. Of these two evils, bribery, though
indefensible, had some redeeming features; but what
redeeming feature was to be found in intimidation?
The "screw" operated in an infinite variety of ways,
and where there was one case of bribery, there were
5000 of intimidation. Against this species of influence
there was no remedy whatever but the ballot; no law
could protect the tenant at will, the tradesman, or the
debtor; a practice so universal, a habit so inveterate,
could be extinguished by secret voting alone. He cited,
with playful criticisms, the denunciations uttered by
members of the present government against corruption
and intimidation, and the declaration of the Solicitor-
General in favour of the ballot, though he suspected, he
said, that the ministers would creep under the gabardine
of the Times, which had represented this question as
one, not of philosophy, but of fact. Mr. Berkeley
accepted this definition, and proceeded to grapple with
the arguments against the ballot which have been
offered in this journal. One of the complaints against
this change, he observed, was that the ballot had a
democratical tendency; but he challenged any one to
show what democratic quality resided in a measure
which was only the restoration of an usurped right.
Secrecy of voting secured the exercise of a constitutional
privilege. He invited any one to show, in any foreign
country where the ballot existed, such scenes as were
exhibited at Sixmile-bridge or Clithero. In conclusion,
he called upon the house to restore to the people a
chartered right, to which they were as much entitled as to the
enjoyment of the sun's rays.—Sir J. SHELLEY seconded
the motion, which was opposed by Mr. E. BALL, and
supported by Mr. J. PHILLIMORE and Mr. BRADY.—
Mr. S. HERBERT thought that in the speech of Mr.
Berkeley might be discerned a confession that, although
the ballot was a remedy against intimidation, it was no
specific for the cure of bribery, which was an awkward
subject to deal with. Since the Reform Bill it was
notorious that intimidation had been diminishing, while
bribery was increasing. He denied that the ballot
would prevent intimidation either in England or in
Ireland; and as to bribery, if it were desired to aggravate
bribery, he should say, resort to the ballot, which would
hold out an inducement to the candidate to bribe and
cast a convenient mantle over the dishonest voter, whom
it would effectually screen from detection. The elective
franchise was a trust, and, like all public functions,
ought to be exercised under responsibility to public
opinion. The ballot in America, which was only a
particular mode of taking votes openly and ostentatiously
given, had not prevented, but only changed, the course
of corruption, of which deep complaints were made.
To render secret voting effectual, it must be compulsory;
but it was not in the nature of the English character to
practise this concealment. The system of secret voting
was contrary to the spirit of our free institutions: it
would demoralise the national character, and tend to
sap the foundations of English liberty. For these
reasons he should vote against the motion.—Lord A.
LENNOX likewise opposed the motion.—Mr. COBDEN
maintained that the question had been settled by reason
and argument in favour of the ballot, which, while it
was a perfect shield against intimidation, was a potent
obstacle to bribery. He denied that intimidation had
diminished since the Reform Act. County contests
were becoming rare; the tenantry had succumbed to
the influence of their landlords, who resented the canvass
of their tenants without their permission as an insult.
He disputed the grounds upon which Mr. Herbert had
argued that the ballot would not prevent bribery, and
replied to his remarks upon the American ballot-system,
to which all the States but one or two slave States were
strongly attached. His hope was that the ballot would
change the character of our elections, so that voters
might go to the poll as quietly as to church. This was
a question in which the electoral body took a deep
interest; the large constituencies were pressing for the
ballot, and if the government were determined to resist
it, what other remedy for an acknowledged evil did they
propose? Why not pass an act making the ballot
permissive? Without that protection he would rather
not have an extension of the franchise among another
stratum of society.—Sir R. PEEL supported the motion,
not because he desired to unsettle the institutions of the
country, but from the conviction that it was calculated
to promote the independence of the people, and to
insure the freedom and purity of elections. The ballot
would strike at the root of those evils which had been
revealed before the election committees, without affecting
the legitimate influence of property. Secrecy of
voting was freedom of voting; this was exemplified in
despotic countries, and recently in Spain and Tuscany.
Sir Robert, after amusing the house for some time with
lively strictures upon members of the administration,
urged the demoralising effects of intimidation, bribery,
and corruption, the inefficient system of election
committees, and that the question of the concession of the
ballot was merely one of time.—The LORD ADVOCATE
said, the ground upon which he opposed the motion was,
that the ballot was not only not consonant, but antagonistic
and repugnant to the principles of free government,
which recognised public and popular opinion as the only
security for the honest exercise of political trusts.—
Mr. BRIGHT said, the first question was, whether there
was a case; the next, whether the remedy proposed was
applicable to the case. The objections to the motion
were three—either the evil was not so great as had
been alleged; or the ballot would not cure it; or, if
otherwise, the remedy would be as bad as the disease.
He enumerated the members who been unseated during
this session for bribery and treating, and dwelt with
particularity upon certain specific instances of influence
and coercion exercised upon electors in Ireland,
contending that in these cases of intimidation, as well as in
the cases of bribery in England, the ballot would have
provided an effectual remedy. He then gave very full
details respecting the ballot system of the United States,
which in Massachussetts was highly prized as the palladium
of liberty. It was worth while, he thought, to
endeavour to amend our system by trying this plan,
and, unless they were hypocrites, the house was bound,
he said, either to point out a remedy as good as
Mr. Berkeley's, or to consent to the introduction of his
bill.—After some remarks by Captain KNOX and Lord
HILL, in reply to Mr. Bright, Lord John RUSSELL,
having defended himself against certain criticisms of
Mr. Berkeley, observed that the question appeared to
him to rest upon a different foundation from that on
which it had been placed by Mr. Cobden, who argued
that no one had a right to know how another voted,
whereas he (Lord John) was of opinion that an elector
exercised a public trust, for which he was responsible
to public opinion. He held, moreover, with the Lord
Advocate, that secret voting was hostile to the spirit of
liberty in this country; and, with respect to the example
of the United States, the policy of secret voting was
matter of dispute, the Governor of New York having
declared that bribery and corruption were making great
advances in that State. If, therefore, they had no