25 JUNE 1870, Page 11

BRIBERY AT TEST-BALLOTS.

[TO THE EDITOR OF THE " SPEOTATOR:1

SIR, —Your correspondent Mr. W. H. Northy, whose letter appeared in your paper of Saturday last, is entirely in error in what he says as to the recent test-ballot at Bristol. He says that a voting-card was sent by post to each voter, so that the briber was able to secure his object by witnessing the erasure from the card of the names of the candidates other than the one whose selection he was seeking to promote. The fact is, that the greatest care was taken to prevent any such practice. A paper (not the voting-card) was sent by post to each voter, as evidence of his right to take part in the ballot, and upon production of this paper at the voting-place the presiding officer (who alone had possession of the voting-cards) supplied a card to the voter. The voter then retired with his card to a private box, and erased the names of the candidates he desired to reject, and having folded his card, placed

it, in the presence of the presiding officer, in the ballot-box. Such a proceeding as your correspondent itnaglues was therefore impossible.

While I ask you to allow me to correct Mr. Northy'a facts, I may add my own opinion that the Bristol case affords no argu- ment of weight against the efficacy of the ballot in checking corrupt practices. Not only was the amount of bribery proved extremely small, consisting of sums of 2s. given to a very limited number of persons, but out of three witnesses produced at the trial who had received these bribes to vote for Mr. Robinson, two stated that they in fact voted at the ballot for one of the other candidates. —I am, Sir, &c.,