The Sun. — London, England, 1835-06-03 00:00:00

to, under a feeling of responsibility to the public. The °tent• „ ni •Ijln to doirve, s ••, -;• ,-ion ,• , i;t 11 , whether he might agree or differ w oil those around I,'“ (Hear.) He was no more accountable to them for 1 ; 8 4 w e l l 11 1 i s a c i g e than a m , they were accountable to him for the irs. I Sir, continued the Honourable Gentle nn, to detain you longer, I think it imperatively necessary to lir one other argument which is often employed against the l ue „ Q t• We are told that it will annihilate the legitimate in it; : t e e of property—that it will take away from rich men a p oo _ arY and beneficial guidance which they now exercise over th r and humble electors. Ido not despair of showing that o ev ery reverse of this is the truth ; that not a fragment or b tl of the legitimate influence of property will be impaired ➢ ti t i ttan. ,e Ballot. It is, indeed, necessary that we should under m„' What gentlemen mean by the legitimate influence of it n l' e rtY, and how far they are pleased to extend it. Do they th ln that the rich are 4 entitled to appropriate to themselves elective franchise which the law has conferred upon the o r Is ? Is it contended that a tenant is under obligation , m oral, or political, to vote for the person whom his landlord eerpouse, whatever may be his own feelings or judgme n t ? ' 1 he be condemned to transfer his suffrage from Whig to :j o y ! acc or di ng as hi s landlord moy change his politics, or p t i e "ling as the farm which he occupies may. change pro % ' O rs, as if he were pars domils, non pars retpublice--as if ktelitical conscience (to use the phrase of Paley) were a iperY which he could not afford to keep? Is the legitimate p f , t tetee of the rich understood to imply the entire extinction %Zee will and independent judgment on the part of poor elec it;;? If this be what is meant by legitimate influence, I h i tch my imagination in vain to discover what influence can km tibly be illegitimate ; for the most barefaced bribery could ` Produce worse political effects than this degrading vassal t6e, It were far better that the poor man should possess no 7 at all than that he should possess a vote subject to such tnn ensured interference, which disguises the most servile b r,triint under the hollow forms of citizenship. In my view the case, Sir, no influence can be legitimate which is incon ,;nt with the rights and station of a freeman—no such influ -7 can be even tolerated, according to English ideas and L e s of action. And it is idle to call a man a freeman, if he be 1"41,at liberty to exercise those rights, civil, social, and politi fm_ Which the law confers upon him, according to his own k 7 choice and conscience, without let or hindrance. I ti jieh man, be his wealth ever so great, can pretend The influence or righteously, to trample down this boundary. Le influence which he exercises must be an influence over en, not over slaves, or clients, or vassals—an influence 14 g filed and sanctioned and ensured by their own concurrence 0 fre e w ill . L eg iti mate i n fl uen ce supposes willing followers t i o en honourable obedience : it excludes all abject submis ki; springing from constraint and fear. Now, Sir, I hold ` this legitimate influence will be preserved just as much f a der th e Ballot as under open suffrage—without counteraction 4thatement. Exercised as it is over none but willing sub -I`lB, it will be just as complete and as effective in secret as kPublic. The men who obey such guidance feel no hard -1,115 in it, nor any disposition to elude or renounce it. They et" a leader whom they esteem and honour, whose social vltion they look up to, and whose character and be etir they regard with affection and reverence. If, Sir , h„l p t ; desire to retain this legitimate influence of property e * unalloyed, and in full vigour and vitality, while, for the same time, you effectually disarm that brute N e e of wealth which now presses down the poor t's will and conscience—if you seriously desire to 4mitre,, these great and valuable ends, you will adopt the vo te u atot. I shall not believe, Sir, until I hear it actually k l i ireed, that any Gentleman in this House will brand the e l l (I t as an innovation on the Constitution, and as belong . ing . tiol Y i to democracy. How can the Ballot alter your Constitu- Is there a man in the country whose legal rights and v i,teges the Ballot will either extend or curtail, even by a ogle hair? Will it confer any new political rights, or im o etY new civil disabilities ? Sir, the Ballot will do none e t hese things ; and how then can it alter the fo r m of yo ur °e stitution, either for better or for worse ? What is your e 0 lki t stitution except an aggregate of legal and political rights I obligations, distributed in a certain manner among your e o l u t ens ; and if all these remain the same , severally as well as Lectively, how can your Constitution be anything different 1: 0 7 1 !L what it was before ? Again, let me compare my pro- I tien with that of the Hon. Member for Shaftesbury. Is to:r1 s an of the one who will tell him that his Bill alters ss the land- Constitution—that in trying to suppre coercive tt ence over votes, he is guilty of a piece of odious demo ttakidcY ? And what is the difference between his proposition ,teine, except that I fully accomplish that which he sin etY, but ineffectually aims at? That end is, free and cone voting—the genuine and unadulterated opinion of qualified electors. The Ballot will give you nothing less in thi s ; b ut at t h e same t i me it cannot give you anything t ire, or anyt hi ng worse. Vi n d ex tacit libertatis. Is this t i l PLlrpose for e ign to the Constitution ? If it be , then I a ffirm Mantes, Your Constitution is an assemblage , not of checks and e Lauces, but of cheats and fictions. You call the House of eltrnons a representative assembly, and you qualify certain ttsons as electors ; but what are they, after all, when you ve s o qualified them ? They are distinguished from their ti t onntrymen by a peculiar badge of servitude and legalized ependance. It is not they twho elect members—it is the A • ristocracy who elect by and through their voices. Your register of voters becomes nothing better than a re ter of men liable to electoral impressment—liable to ple a Iled upon to do compulsory voting-duty, whenever it -tits es their commanders to issue warrants for their attend e:e• And is this, after all, the real heart and kernel of the t wee this the arcanum imperii which Gentlemen th e e so much delight in holding forth to public view, when tell us that the purpose of the Ballot is unconstitutional dnd democratical ? I venture to say, that the fiercest and most tiutious of all the decried newspapers has never put forth a ta ° t l ;e deadly libel against the Constitution than this, the alle dt,l,°ll of its extreme panegyrists—the allegation that it repu- I .:Les free and independent voting, as a dangerous novelty, fo t;„len to its genius and spirit. Sir, I affirm, and I defy con tiz7lietion that free and independent voting is the most consti te l enal of all constitutional things, and that all the means tjessary for such an end must be constitutional also. Well, t," some ed Gentlemen may say, we admit all this ; but we con . at that you have free and independent voting as things stand p r ,Ptesent. Is this, indeed, so? Then, I ask, what can you i""sibly have to fear from the ballot? Reasoning on this at,- igiption, the Ballot will no more vary the course of our poll te,l affairs than it will vary the orbits of the pl anets. But i t e .` , an assumption is not for a moment to be tolerated— trill not true—it is not even an approx imation to the th e t 't• There is the amplest proof that your suffrage is hie very reverse of free; and, therefore , the measure t h,h emancipates it will work a salutary and important ti ;nge. B u t it is a ch a nge, the extent of which e ver y man th,,, 11 s ee and measure—a change which can only land you in Yileand natural haven of a representative assembly, the ,di sturbed manifestation of real electoral feelings. Let me ind you, Sir, that the dignity, the usefu lness, the moral t„elndancy, of this House, depend upon its p ossessin g the ere and unqualified confidence of the people ; and that of there is no 'other constitutional test except the free and 11,7 t "'iassed choice of the electors. Let me remind y ou that e Arat and greatest interests of the State—the tie of affee t°nate reverence which binds a nation to its elective Legisla tt:e--the inducements for the rich to respect the conscience, cultivate the attachment, and to improve the understand hg% *the poor--all these inestimable obj ects are at stake in th e integrity and independence of the suffrage. You insure y,„ Q , 111 ) beyond suspicion or contest, by granting the Ballot : " never can insure them without it.—( Loud cheers.) I t he refore beg to move, That it is the opinion of this House , ha t the votes at elections for Members of Parliament should taken by way of secret Ballot."—( Cheers. ) Sir W. MOLE SWORT H then rose to second the motion. e Said if there was one fact more clearly established than / t lt l other by the unanimous testimony of all parties it was this— ;at during the late election the grossest intimidation had pre 'ed•—( Hear, hear.) Each defeated candidate invariably Zeribed the loss of his election to intimidation ; comp laints of (plidation were to be found in every election pe tition. _ ear, h ear .) There was the undoubted, most explicit , and 4 ° st valuable testimony of the Noble Lord a t the bead of the One Department, that he had lost his electio n for South t 'on solely through the continued and systematic intimida t, of the Tory landlords and Parsons. — ( Hear, hear.) Intl ;ilidation had, within the last few weeks , been resolutel y car on in Yorkshire, Staffordshire, and Inverness-shire.— ear, hear.) Meanwhile the peop le were the sufferers ; and d l l O protect them in the exercise of the e lectoral franchise which t i 4 L tt bee n b e stowed upon them—not to give the predominance Lily particular party—was the m otive which induced him to CPPort the motion of his Hon. Frien d the Member for Lon -4”--( Hear, hear.) He did not care whether the Ballot had k e aristocratic or a democratic tendency ; all he contended for hthat the Ballot was by far the bes t, the onl y means of en ilag freedom of election ; and all who acknowled g ed the e°ry of a representative government must necessarily ac ttetvledge thatfreedom of ection was all-important. —( Hear. kerne Hon, Gentlemen seemed to think that intimidation could Prevented by penal enactments. Those Hon. Gentlemen ''n.st be but slightly acquainted with the common modes of inti tation. Landlords seldom directly inf ormed their tenants that punishment would follow disobedience. They merely so toed th e votes of their tenants, and left the e vils conse q uent t i l ; 34 a refusal to be inferred ; and this was in most cases suffi ly-nt•-- (Hear.) The Hon. Baronet instanced a case in the late e von election of a body of tenantry , alm ost all of whom had itt a former contested election voted for the Noble Lord the meretary for the Home Department, but who, without the f;liatest cbange'in their political sentiments, now voted against i h ir P• He ( Sir W. Molesworth) inquired the reason, and was ' c inned that at the first election the landlord had abstained r o n . l et ‘o all interference, but that on this occasion he had written a thewhich was taken to each of the tenantry by an opponent Noble Lord, wherein he stated, that though he did not tsi s h t; compel his tenantry to vote contrary to their inclina.- f,1 42 , yet if any of them had not made up their minds he should lunch obliged by their voting for his candidate, Mr. Parker. Some of the tenants abstained from going to the poll at all—the A t tainder voted against the Noble Lord.—( Hear, hear. ) e Uld any penal enactments prevent this , the commonest and 14' Otteeffective species of intimidation ? ( Hear, hear.) At the to election in Devonshire, gentlemen who once held liberal t : v ii'inions suddenly were found to have apostatised ; and along 1 1 th them whole bands of tenantry seemed, as it were, miracti b°usly to change their opinions.—( Hear, hear, hear.) It had e asserted that it was the cry of " No Popery" which had influenced the electors of Devon. Some of them had, no doubt, L e 'Rned it as the only means of concealing their real slavery ; t though he ( Sir W. Molesworth) could not.from his own per tr„el knowledge, speak highly either of the intelligence or edu en of the electors of that county in general, yet he could not t 0 o 4 t elv that they were so beastly stupid, so miserably ignorant, .as have credited the falsehoods which were so industriously cir tliafed on this subject, or to have • believed the assertions of " clergyman, who told his pariiniQuers when assembled in Men l : g all ' ''. P vil • )10 vestry that the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin had Prie,t to t.neli pari , ,h in the c(luto - y.--i . and a laugh.) The Noble Lord was most correct when, in his parting address to his supporters in Devon, he attributed his defeat to intimidation and undue influence. That election was lost through the exertions of the Nobles and of the landed gentry, and through the undue influence of the Clergy, who, as the proprietors, were, in a certain degree, the landlords of each farm in the county.—( Hear.) Freedom of election was the only means of obtaining pure representation and of insuring good Government ; and, therefore, every obstacle which op posed itself to that freedom of election ought, at every risk, to be removed. It was demonstrated, beyond a doubt, not only that with the Ballot all intimidation would be quite useless, but that open voting was much more likely to produce immo rality than secret voting.—( Hear, hear.) There was an ar gument which had been much employed by the antagonists of the Ballot, and on which the Noble Lord the Member for Stroud placed especial reliance. The elective franchise, it was said, was a trust reposed in the hands of the elector for the advantage of the community ; and the elector was responsible for the manner in which he exercised that trust. Secret suf frage would destroy that responsibility, and therefore it was argued it would be an evil. Now, if the electoral system were what it ought to be, the interests of the electors would coin cide with the interests of the community ; and the real wishes of the electors would be the best expression of the real inte rests of the community. If this responsibility of the elector to the non-elector acted in the same direction as the wishes of the elector, then evidently it was superfluous ; if this re sponsibility acted in a contrary direction, it was pernicious ; but what was the price they now paid for this useless re sponsibility ? To obtain it the elector was exposed to all the influence which wealth possessed over poverty ; they created for the elector two responsibilities—a responsibility to the non-electors, and a responsibility to the rich and the powerful. Who did not see that the responsibility of the poor man to the poor class of men was as nothing, whilst the responsibility to the rich man was all powerful? Those who laid stuch stress upon the responsibility to the non-elector themselves proclaimed the worthlessness of it, for they said that with secret suffrage tenants would stay away from the poll at the command of their landlords. What did this pro claim in the loudest manner? What but this—that the mo tive created by the power of good or evil in the hands of the poor multitude was as nothing—that the motive created by the same power in the hands of the rich few was irresistible. Could there be a stronger argument in favour of the Ballot than this? Could there be a more pointed satire on the pre tence that the knowledge by the poor of the manner in which the elector voted was a security for honest voting ?—( Hear. ) Of these positions (the Hon. Baronet continued) the Noble Lord, the ex-Member for Devon, ought now to be aware. He would recall to that Noble Lord's recollection his enthu siastic reception in the south of Devon ; the scene in the Castle-yard in Exeter ; the assembled thousands who there greeted him with the loudest acclamations, and three-fourths of whom held up their hands in his favour.—( Hear.) Where he would ask that Noble Lord, was his much vaunted respon sibility of the elector to the non-elector when a few days afterwards, in that same city, an enormous majority re corded their votes against him.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord had experienced the effects of the responsibility of the elector to the wealthy and powerful; he had found it irre sistible.—(Hear, hear, hear.) It was said that men who ab stained from registering their votes, or who voted contrary to their real wishes, were traitors to their country. Undoubtedly they were so. But he should contend that men who, by acting in a contrary manner, exposed themselves to the anger and evil offices of their powerful superiors, were tenfold traitors to themselves, to their families, and to their dearest dependents. Men could not be expected, nor would the) year after year sacrifice themselves—year after year sacrifice: their families and their best interests—in order to ' (*ratify the ambition, to secure the return, of those who would not listen to their complaints, or grant them the much needed, the only efficacious protection, of the Ballot. Let the Noble Lord and those who thought with him reflect and ponder well upon these facts. They ought now to be aware of the fact—to them undoubtedly a most mortifying fact, that amongst the gentry of England their party was most dreadfully in the mi nority ; they ought now to be aware that the vast majority of the aristocracy of the landed gentry, and all the clergy, to a man, were their determined and irreconcileable foes—( Hear, hear) —who would spare no efforts, who would use every species of intimidation and undue influence, to compass their destruction.—( Hear, hear, hear.) They could not with the same weapons successfully contend against their too power ful antagonists. If they could not protect their friends— and they were too weak to do so without the aid of the Ballot—if they left their supporters exposed to the tender mercies of the Tory party—they would by degrees be ejected, like the Noble Lord, from the representation of all the counties of England. Did they remember their fatal losses in the counties during the last general election ? Did they remember that their friends were ejected, and re placed by their antagonists, in Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire, Denbighshire, Derbyshire, Devonshire South, Essex South, Gloucestershire West, Hampshire South, Lancashire South, Leicestershire South, Lincolnshire, Nor- folk East, Northamptonshire South, Shropshire North, Suf folk East, Suffolk West, Surrey East, Surrey West, War wickshire South ; that within the last few weeks they had been again dismissed from Devonshire, Inverness-shire, and Staffordshire. They had themselves proclaimed to the people of the United Kingdom the causes of their defeat in the Ad dress of their own Reform Association. They there told the people that their defeat was not caused by " any change or re-action in public opinion, but by various means either out of the reach or repugnant to the principles of Reformers, by the unprecedented canvass of a large body of the Clergy, by bribery and intimidation, by the corrupting influence of close corporations, by the unscrupulous perversion by Tory autho rities for party purposes of powers confided to them for the maintenance of order and the ends of justice." These, the Hon. Baronet concluded with saying, were their own words, and by them they were now called upon to abide. Did they require stronger arguments in favour of the Ballot than those? Was this list not a sufficient proof to them of the absolute necessity of the Ballot ?—( Hear.) Did they prefer to be ut terly annihilated as a party in the House, rather than have the Ballot? If so, their fate was nigh at hand, and they would well merit it. (The Hon. Baronet sat down amidst much cheering.) Mr. GISBORNE—In rising to oppose the measure of the Hon. Gentleman, was glad to find it admitted and recognised that the franchise was held by those who possessed it as a trust. If, as was admitted, the franchise was a trust, why was it that a trust so important should be exercised in a secret and inscru table manner?—(Cheers.) Why should it be exercised in such a way as to render it impossible for the person in whom the trust was vested to prove whether he had or had not exer cised it for the benefit of those in whose behalf he was em- powered to use it ?—( Hear, hear.) If the secresy did not go to that extent it would be inefficacious._( Cheers.) Now the advantages of open voting were so strong and obvious that he could not consent to abandon them. Indeed the scenes which the late elections exhibited had almost overcome his scruples with regard to the Ballot, and he would consent entirely to give up those scruples if the Hon. Gentleman would convince him that the advantages which it was insisted would follow from the Ballot could be obtained. He felt that it would be very difficult to frame a system of voting which would secure secrecy. He had suggested to the Hon. Member, instead of his present motion, to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the means of framing some machinery for secret voting at elections which would be effective against intimidation, and if the result of the inquiries of that Committee made it appear that such machinery could be devised the measure should have his support ; but he could not, in the present state of the question, support the bold proposition of the Hon. Gentleman. He was, to a certain extent, a convert to the Ballot. He was so far a convert to it that he was ready to encounter all the inconveniences of secret voting if he could be convinced that a perfect system was practicable. The Hon. Member for the City of London stated that the Ballot would not alter the Constitution of the country, and appeared throughout his speech to expect that its adoption would tend to the increase of the popular power. Now he (Mr. Gisborne), at the same time that he wished to be understood as far from desiring any extension of the franchise or popular power, begged to express it as his opinion that the Ballot, so far from promoting, would not only prevent the increase but considerably circumscribe the bounds of popular influence. Suppose a strong popular feel ing in favour of an extended franchise were to spring up under the present system, it was evident that the existence of such a feeling would have a great influence on the voting, but he much doubted whether an elector, if he could vote in secret, would be inclined to admit the class below himself in the scale of society to a participation in that privilege which thus gave him a degree bf power and influence. On these grounds he did not look to the Ballot as a thing likely to give a great extension to democratic power ; on the contrary, he thought it would operate quite the other way ; but though he regarded this argument as no re commendation to it, and though thinking that a fair ex tension of the franchise had already been made, and that there was a fair sample of the opinions of the country to be found in the present state of its representation, and that its several interests were adequately placed before the House of Commons, he was not prepared to sanction any measure tend ing to increase the popular power. He had come to the de termination of giving the motion of his Hon. Friend every opposition in his power. If the Hon. Member had moved for a Committee he should have had his (Mr. Gisborne's) support, but at the present moment he felt convinced he best consulted the advantages of the question by meeting the motion with a direct negative. Dr. BOWRiNG supported the original motion. Mr. B. HOY should give his support to the amendment of the Hon. Member for South Derbyshire. Mr. STRUTT supported the original motion. In his opinion the system of Ballot, so far from interfering with the security of property to its prejudice, would render it much more firmly based, for it would give to the man who had little the same means of defending that little, as the man who was rich had of watching o ver hi s t h ousan d s. I t was sa id i t would destroy the influence of goo d masters over th e i r ser vants ; he thought it would have quite a contrary effect. There was another argument advanced against the Ballot, namely that it would lead to the i mmora li ty o f i n d uc i ng men to break their promises. But he wou ld as k what ki n d o f morality was that which would exact the fulfil men t o f a pro mise which it was in itself unfair to propose ? What right had the rich man to extort a promise from the poor ? Then, as to the objection to the motion that the machinery of the secret voting was not explained, the two questions were quite dis tinct. Let the Ballot be first established, and the scheme of its working would soon follow. Mr. WILLIAMS, from the many instances of intimida tion and corruption he had witnessed, was favourable t o t h e Ballot. The extension of the franchise under the Reform 13111 has been, in many cases, an evil, from . the many tempts_ tions to bribery, and the exposures to intimidation which it . " THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3, 1835. has caused, and the only protection is to be found in the oanot.— ( He ir, . ) Mr. C. RUSSELL would call on the Government oppo site now to redeem their own former pledge, and, as the sup porters of the Reform Bill, in virtue of the assurance con veyed at that time, to resist further change—fundamental and dangerous change.--( Hear, hear.) All the safeguards of the institutions of the country were founded on publicity. On the consciousness of the rectitude of one's own actions, and of their receiving the approbation of his fellow-men, depended in a great measure their proper direction. The law of public opinion was both the great check and spur on men's conduct. When a man sees that by doing his duty he will receive the applause of his friends and neighbours, and that their con demnation will be his severest punishment, he will be un likely to swerve from the line of probity. But once teach him to act secretly and with impunity, you extinguish his pride, slacken his sterling independence, and vitiate his inte grity ; you teach him dishonesty, and inculcate fraud, and convert the open independent voter into a sly, dark, faithless hypocrite.—( Hear, hear.) Why do men obey the laws, but because they receive the sanction of public opinion, and are stamped with the authority of Parliament ? Why do we value Trial by Jury, but because the opinions of the Judge and the verdict of the Jury are given in the face of day, and are sub mitted to the test of the public scrutiny. " The value of the opinions of the Jury and the Judge all depend on publicity," said Lord Hardwicke. What was the reason that Hon. Mem bers voted against each other openly in that House, but be cause they looked to the sense of their constituents, were anxious to secure their good opinion, as well as to maintain their own honour, and proclaim their notions of rectitude and public duty to the community ?—(Cheers.) They should then, take care to bind fast around the institutions of the coun try the safeguard of publicity, and let them do so by resisting this furtive project, which was at variance with the Constitu tion, as it was subversive of public morality. The Hon. Gen tleman was bound to prove the advantages of the Ballot. Could he maintain that it would put an end to canvassing ? He surely could not. Canvassing would still go on, in other and worse channels. The voter would still be the object of importunity, and still promises would be given, which, if the voter were an honest man, he would keep, and, keeping, would not be much disposed to conceal ; secrecy, then, would be of no use to the honest man, and would only be used as a cover by the rogue. The Ballot would vitiate moral charac ter, under the pretence of securing political independence, and would debase a man to take a bribe with the additional turpi tude of breaking his promise.—( Cheers.) The friends of the Ballot did not agree either with another, or with themselves. They were at variance about the principle and its modes of ope ration. Under the French Constitution in 1791 the electors were allowed to vote openly ; under the altered Constitution of 1793 there was a little approach to the Ballot, for the electors were allowed to vote by scrutiny or openly. Danton and the Re publicans of that day contended for open voting—said Danton, " publicity is the aliment of liberty." But in 1795, as they made more progress in revolution and its consequent events, the electors were forced to vote secretly. Which of these would the Hon. Gentleman patronize ?—( Cheers, and laughter.) When the question was brought on last year the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, in his honest zeal for effecting a good object--( A laugh)—the good object of the Ballot, and his fair wish to disarm the prejudices of its oppo nents—the unfounded and misguided prejudice—declared he would not desire to prevent any one who pleased from voting openly. So it was said by the Liberals of France.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) But an Hon. Baronet beside him exclaimed, " What I open votingl if there be no secrecy it is no Ballot." He (Mr. Russell) agreed with the Honourable Baronet.—( Hear, hear.) But would secrecy be maintained by the Ballot? He contended it would not. Allusion was made to the secret voting at the Bank and t...e India House. But this did not prevent canvassing or expense, which was often as great as at an election for a member of that House ; neither did it prevent the exercise of personal influence. There Was no analogy between the election of a Member of Parliament by Ballot, and the election of an East India or Bank Director by Ballot ; neither was there in the election of members of clubs. The Hon. Member spoke of the Ballot among the Greeks, but he had not told the House what good it had effected them, yet any schoolboy might have in formed him that it procured the banishment of the justest man among them.--( Cheers and laughter.) Cicero had, it was true, in the commencement of his career, been favourable to the Ballot. In one of his early speeches he called it "prin cipium justissimce libertatis." But as his judgment became more matured, and his experience more enlarged, he atoned for this error by leaving on record, in one of his finest essays, his opinion of the system. In it he inveighs against the Ballot, because he saw its evil tendencies. He says, " The Ballot destroys the fair balance and harmony between the several orders of the State. It ranges the populace against the aristocracy; it makes them insolent and insincere; and gives all the offices of the State to the mob. I was made Consul by the people voting viva voce. The public good requires that voting should be deprived of its secrecy."— (Loud cheers.) America was quoted as a precedent. America was the first example of the use of the Ballot in modern times. But this was not a fair example, considering the dif ference of our institutions and theirs, and the discrepancy between the various classes of society. America was a young country, and the Ballot was not so unsuited to her institutions as it was to ours, to which it was so adverse. But if bribery and intimidation were to be prevented by the Ballot, the Hon. Gentleman must select some other case as proof than America. If Hon. Gentlemen imagined that the Ballot worked good in America, the newspapers of that country would tell them that at elections there, intimidation and bribery were practised to a vast extent, notwithstanding the guardianship of the Ballot. (" No, no," from some Members.) Well, if they did not be lieve the American newspapers, would they ,not believe the Hon. Member for Oldham, who certainly knew more of the tyranny. What he was most desirous of seeing accomplished was the establishment of the fairest, freest, and most impartial system of election that could be procured. The Honourable Gentleman had merely placed the question before the House, stating his sentiments in favour of the Ballot ; but not one word had he uttered as to the machinery by which this system was to be worked, not one word as to how fraud, or the re ception of improper votes, was to be prevented. Many a the undue and improper returns arose in consequence of the grossest impartiality in the conduct of the Returning Officer. This fact must be familiar to all Hon. Gentlemen, who had attended on Election Committees. He would here state a case. At a recent election one of the candidates had appa- rently the majority on the poll of only one vote. A queition arose whether one voter had been improperly admitted to vote or not. Now in this case the greatest possible power was lodged in the hands of the Returning Officer.— ( Hear, hear.) The Honourable Gentleman the Member for London might have a machinery in store for introducing when he brought his Bill forward. As to whether he had or had not he could not pretend to say, but he would now re- cur to the principle of Of secret voting. The Hon. Member had divided his subject into two parts. First, as to intimida tion, and secondly, as to bribery. Intimidation was no doubt carried on at present to a great extent, and particularly among tenants at will. But was it not obvious that if secret voting were established the landlord would exercise all his remaining influence to ascertain the way his tenant voted? And land lords who had now no scruple in having recourse to intimida tion would go subsequently to the election, and ask the tenant upon his honour, did he, or did he not, vote in such or such a way. He would put a case where a landlord had fifty tenants, and, with strong interest in favour of a candidate, was deter mined to carry the election. He might give out, and he had the power, that he would punish all those who would not give a positive promise in favour of this candidate. He would not go into the nice metaphysical and casuistical question as to whether under such circumstances the right existed to violate the sacred obligations of honour and truth.—(Hear.) The Noble Lord then proceeded to argue that the name and influ ence of an independent farmer was often of great weight in an election, and to adopt the system of secret voting would be to deprive him of that weight and influence which were to him political rights, and as such on his behalf he the Noble Lord claimed them. With regard to intimida tion, he knew something of that. He knew what it was six years before the Reform Bill, and what it had been the three years subsequently. He knew that it still existed to a very considerable extent, but he also knew that public opi nion had been busy in proclaiming itself so loudly that it made each candidate anxious to disclaim any part in such proceed ing • and he had no doubt that in a short time public opinion would obtain sun a strength that the Ballot would be consi dered totally unnecessary. The Hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Ward) had alluded to the spies employed over the country. If an argument were wanted against the Ballot this would be one, viz., that an organised system of spies would be established for the purpose of ascertaining how each individual voted—a course which would produce mutual jea lousies and heartburnings, and put an end to all the ameni ties of social life. Another argument had been adduced, — namely, the defeats that had been sustained in the late county elections. This could not be denied, for it was a melancholy fact that such defeats had been incurred.—( Laughter.) There was another argument which he could not pass over without comment ; namely, that the introduction of the Ballot would allay political animosities at elections, and prevent those pri vate feuds amongst friends and neighbours which resulted from the present system of voting. Now he very much doubted, whether, as long as political parties were constituted as they now were, party feuds and political animosities could be pre vented by any arrangement whatever of the kind. Nay, more, he thought, of the two evils, it was very much preferable that party feuds should exist than that the freeholders and elec tors of the country should not take that zealous and warm interest in its service, which it was their duty to display.—( Hear, and cheering.) In America, notwith standing the use of the Ballot, it was notorious that party feuds did exist, and ran higher perhaps at elections than in any other part of the world. He would not enter further into the discus sion on the general merits of this question. In conclusion, he must say that he rather regretted that the Hon. Member for Derbyshire had met this motion by moving the previous ques tion.—( Hear, hear, hear.) If it had been left to him (]Lord Howick) to move an amendment, he should have much pre ferred one expressive of a direct negative of the principles in volved in the resolution.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. C. BULLER as one of the original supporters of the Reform Act, begged to dissent from the motion that that great measure was to be considered a final measure, and a bar to all further change.—( Hear.) He had been in the House at the time of the debates upon that interesting question, and he per fectly recollected hearing the Noble Lord who moved the Bill declare that he set aside the consideration of the Ballot for the time being, and left it for considera tion on some future occasion.—( Hear.) It had been said by the advocates against this resolution that the Reform Act was a sufficient guarantee for the independence and rights of the electors of England. It had been asked, what had oc curred since the passing of the Reform Act to render necessary any additional guarantee in the shape of the Ballot? He (Mr. C. Buller) replied—the experience of two general elec tions.—( Hear.) The result of these two elections showed that the Reform Act was only efficient as a general guarantee for the people against wholesale tyranny on the part of their rulers, but that it was totally unavailing against the influence of intimidation at individual elections.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord who last spoke said that the result of the last election had not been obtained by means of intimidation on the part of the Ministers, but through a species of delusion which happened to prevail throughout the country. Now, in his humble opinion, this was purely an old Tory doctrine which the Noble Lord had advanced.—( Hear, and laughter.) " It was not because intimidation was used by the candidates against us that we were beaten," said the Noble Lord, " but because we were represented as despoilers of the Church, and the friends of Popery." This was the delusion which was kept up, according to the Noble Lord's theory ; but, in his opinion, delusion and intimidation and Conservatism were sy nonymous terms.—( Cheers and laughter.) How would the Noble Lord account for the very partial effect which that delusion had caused in the county of Norfolk, for instance ? How did it occur that whilst the eastern division of the county returned thirty-two Tories, the western division had re turned all its old liberal Members ?—Hear, hear.) The solution of this mystery was simply this, that the landed pro prietors of the eastern division were chiefly Tories, and that the land of the western division was divided between two very institutions of America and the effect of the Ballot than any Member in that House.—[Mr. Cobbett said, with a significant nod and peculiar tone, " I could disclose some secrets about the Ballot in America."]—( Cheers and laughter.) Were Hon. Gentlemen enamoured of strange fashions, then let them deck themselves in the old clothes of the Americans. The Ballot might be fit for a republic, but not for a monarchy. If they chose to apply republican practices to monarchical insti tutions where could they stop ? Why not make the monarchy elective, and the peerage elective ?—( Cheers.) [The Hon. Member next alluded to France, but for a few sentences was inaudible to us.] He preferred, however much he might ad mire the moderation with which that country had reformed its institutions, that England should be permitted to maintain her own. Before he could consent to adopt any such measure, before he could consent to the making so great an inroad upon the Constitution, he thought it was incumbent upon its ad vocates to show that they wished to depart from what was good to that which was better, and not to call upon them on this side of the House to defend the excellence of the present system. But what was proposed was a direct innovation on the national character to which he believed Englishmen would not be brought to submit. They never had been, and God forbid they ever should be, ashamed of voting openly, in the face of day. He trusted that they would be saved the degra dation that must ensue from the introduction of this new system, which was that of striking in the dark, instead of openly and manfully, in the broad face of day.--( Loud cheers.) Mr. WARD admitted that it did appear to be an anomaly, that just at the time we had been extending the franchise— which was to give the very essence of publicity to representa tion—a measure should be proposed calculated to make the Noting secret. The strangeness of this, however, disappeared when it was remembered the danger under which the voter laboured of suffering from coercion. Voters were in the same situation as the subjects of an arbitrary Monarch. Did the Hon. Member mean to tell them that if they were in an other country, with the unfriendly region of Siberia in the background, that the ballot might not give protection to the voter and to his family, and shield them from the effects of despotic power ? Just in such a situation was the present con stituency of this country. The case in favour of the ballet was not made out by looking at the working of the present system. It was said by the Hon. Gontleman that the theory of free representation was the right of every Englishman to give his vote fearlessly in the face of God and his coun try.—( Hear, hear.) But the question arose, can this he done ?—( Hear, hear.) In the late elections he was con vinced that in half the cases where the elective franchise was exercised, the voters could not give a conscientious vote without entailing upon themselves and families conse quences the most fearful, the voters being equally under con trol with the serfs in Siberia. With regard to the advantages of open voting he would first take the situation of those who were tenants at will, created under that clause in the Reform Bill which bore the name of the Noble Marquis opposite (Mar quis of Chandos). Now in the nature of things as they at present existed, taking into consideration the precarious value of agricultural produce, was it likely the influence possessed by the landlord over the tenant would increase ? But as it was, he would ask any Hon. Gentleman acquainted with this class of voters whether there could be a set of men more entirely subservient to their landlords than the tenants at will ? They were not only dependent, but they were almost the property of the landlord, and to such an extent did this belief obtain that it had been considered highly improper for one landlord of a neighbouring estate to canvass the tenantry of another. This was reducing the people to the level of the villains of the Saxon and Norman times, instead of maintaining them in the sturdy independent state so justly eulogised by ' the Hon. Gentleman opposite. The tenantry were, in fact, parcelled out between Tory and Whig. To go from the land, and to look at the effects of the same system in the towns and boroughs of the empire, it would be found equally prejudi cial. What effect had the open voting on the tradesmen and 101. householders of those places? He had seen it in fifty in stances. The candidate proceeded from house to house, generally in the company of some influential gentleman in the neighbourhood, who, if the voter proved at all refractory, gently hinted that his custom was worth having, and that if he (the tradesman) did not vote as he (the gentleman) wished, he should have no more of his custom, and that there were other tradesmen more accommodating in the neighbourhood. It had been objected to the Ballot, by the Hon. Gentleman opposite, that it was un-English, underhand, clandestine, and mean. Was there nothing in the present system deserving these terms of reproach ? What was the system of espionage, the spy system of organized lawyers, plotting how they should get hold of any individual to use his influence with a voter whom that voter notoriously could not refuse ? He had seen so much of disgusting coercion, of voters losing their bread even for six months together, that, if the evils of the Ballot were greater than painted by the Hon. Gentleman opposite, he considered he could not do wrong in giving the motion bis hearty and earnest support. Lord HOWICK, in opposing the motion, assured the Hon. Gentleman the Member for the city of London that in doing so he should hear nothing from him either as to the un-En,g lish or immoral tendency of the Ballot. He (Lord Howick ) was not one of those who, under the name and influence of property, wished to maintain a system of coercion and great Whig proprietors.--(Hear.) How did it happen thii whilst this county acted in this manner the county of Devon shire at the last election—he did not speak of the partial elec tion which had just taken place---( A laugh)—but of the last general election, followed another course, and still returned four Whig Members? The Noble Lord said that since the last general election a very great revolution had come upon the people, and that a powerful inspiration had come over many of their Representatives upon the subject of the malt tax • and that the electors of many of the counties would at a future election never trust any candidate who had the slightest shadow of a chance of being so inspired upon the subject. But in reply to the Noble Lord's doctrine of delu sion, he would ask, what delusion had been practised in three counties in which elections had recently taken place, either upon Popery or the Church, or the malt tax 1—( Hear, hear.) What was the reason that in those three counties Conserva tive candidates had been returned at the recent elections ? Was it not because the greater number of the higher classes in the country were opposed to the present Government ? (Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") This was the fact; and the only means by which the Government could hope to meet this powerful influence was through the unshackled support of that portion of the people who were willing to maintain them in office.—( Hear.) Upon this subject he begged the at tention of the House to a few facts connected with an analysis of the poll at the last election for South Devon. Uposti examining this analysis he was bound to declare his conviction that, so far from any fear of Popery having operated against the success of Lord John Russell, it was nothing else than the fear of the landowners and the parsons which had caused him to be ejected. He recollected very Well that when the Government of Earl Grey were pro posing to enlarge the franchises of the counties, but pro posed only to extend the franchise to the owners of land in the counties—he recollected right well that on that occasion another great Reformer stepped forward—no less a Reformer than the Marquis of Chandos stepped forward boldly and man fully, as became him, to vindicate the rights of the 501. lease holders.-_( Hear, hear.) He vindicated those rights, and he obtained them ; and since that how had they been exercised ? In contradistinction to the way in which the independent free holders had used their votes.—( Hear, hear.) He did not mean to say that the freeholders of counties were the only indepen dent class of electors ; but certainly it could not be denied that amongst them were the greatest number of the indepen dent voters of the counties. If it should appear, upon exa mining the analysis of the poll at the last South Devonshire election that a majority, or at least nearly an equality, of the old freeholders voted for the Noble Lord (J. Russell), how was the majority on the poll which appeared against him made up, if not by the leaseholders dependent in some degree upon their landlords, and who, from fear of the landowners, and not of popery, voted against the liberal candidate ? ( Hear, hear.) The majority against the Noble Lord was 627; and in the gross number of votes polled those of the freehold ers were a l most prec i se ly equa l for either can didate, 1,894 being polled for the Noble Lord, and 1,897 for his successful opponent. But of the leaseholders it appeare d 1,237 o n l y voted for Lord John Russell, and 1,840 for Mr. Parker. But the analysis became still more curious if they looked to particular districts. There was but one exception to the general rule, and that was in the case of Tavistock.— ( Hear, hear.) This exception tended in an evident manner to support his argument, that the influence of the landed gen try had carried the election. Nobody was family connections which the Noble Lord enjoyed in the Ta vistock dist r i c t o f th e coun ty, a n d therefore it was not surpris ingof the ignorant that both of freeholders and of leaseholders ho there polled a considerable majority of votes above his opponent— ( Hear, hear.) In another district, however ( th e name of which we did not hear), where the landowners were chiefly Conservatives, Lord John Russell only obtained 34 free holders' votes, and his opponent 249.—(Hear, hear, hear.) In the district of Honiton, in a parish where the principal landowner was an old and known supporter of the Noble Lord's party, every freeholder except one, and that was the Clergyman of the parish, voted for the Noble Lord.--(Hear, bear.) It might, perhaps, be said that Lord John Russell lost his election because he was supposed to be unfavourable to the claims of the agriculturists. Now, it was remark able that the distresses of the agricultural interests were never so mu c h as men ti o n e d during the election. Besides, their distresses and their claims had too recently been dis posed of in the House, and by the Conservative Ministry. Certain it was that the Gentleman who bad so recently been / -if 2, /7--7/7 //7.1i returned to the House for the southern division of the county of Devon never appeared under the engaging and amiable character of the " farmer's friend."—( Hear, hear, hear, and a laugh.) A very curious case appeared of two parishes in South Devon, which perfectly illustrated the po sition he had taken in reference to this point. Both these pa rishes were chiefly inhabited by farmers, who had always been of the same political opinion ; and had, consequently, al ways voted for the same candidate at elections. One of these parishes was the property of a landlord, and the voters were his tenants ; and the other was occupied by yeomen, living on their own property, by right of which they voted. Now, in the first of these parishes at the election of 1832, every elec tor voted for the Liberal candidate ; but at the late election, the landowner having turned round to Conservatism, all his tenants very obligingly turned with him, and voted for the Tory candidate. In the second parish, on the contrary, all the yeomen voted, as they had been accustomed to do, for the Liberal candidate. Now, after these statements, he thought it was not too much to say that the voters were not sufficiently free according to the present state of the law ; for it appeared that when the landlord was a Liberal they generally supported the Liberal candidate, but when the Landlord was a Tory, they also voted for the Tory, and if the landlord were to change to-morrow, they would, doubtless, change with him. He must confess that he thought the principle of the Ballot had exceedingly good prospects at the present moment. He did not mean to say that the majority of the House was yet in its favour ; though it had met with some recruits amongst its Members. The Hon. Member for St. Alban's, for one, had that night given the question his support. He could only say that they were proud of such support.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord opposite was not yet a convert, it was true, but he hoped that the day of his conversion was not far dis tant.—( Hear, hear.) Now, with respect to bribery, he ad mitted that the Ballot would not entirely do away with this evil ; but he believed that, except in cases where candidates were enormously rich or powerful, the Ballot would go a great way towards it. The Hon. Member for Reading had referred to the experience of France against the Ballot. Now he (Mr. C. Buller) thought the experience of France was en tirely in favour of the Ballot. For his own part he could state to show the necessity which existed for the Ballot, that at one time he had been obliged to canvass during half an hour with a voter in order to induce him to vote against himself ( Mr. C. Buller), fearing the man might vote for him, in consequence of any influence he might have over him.—(lronical cheers and laughter.) He did not understand that laugh. He sup posed the Hon. Gentlemen who uttered it thought it to be an impossibility that a man should be so conscientious. He begged to explain, however, the occasion on which he did this. The fact was, he was already assured of a majority of 200, and, therefore, the House would not over-rate his magnanimity.— ( Loud laughter.) Intimidation before and persecution after had been practised by the vanquished party ; and had not his friends forborne to exercise retaliation, in consequence of the good humour natural to victory, that town would have been in a state which it would be terribl9 to think of. The same was, he was convinced, the condition of all the other towns simi larly circumstanced in England. There was one other great recommendation of the Vote by Ballot. If it were adopted, elections would be less under the influence of popular excite ment and public indignation than at present. He was not fa vourable to agitation when carried beyond the necessary limits. —(Laughter.) The liberal party in that House, and in the Government, knew that a great majority of the property and station of the country was against them—( Hear)—and that they had an active and zealous Clergy to contend with also. To counteract this double influence, they were obliged to have recourse to agitation, and to excite the people to the highest pitch for the purpose of inducing them to preserve their political rights.—( Hear, hear.) If Ballot existed, there would be nothing of this. No man who hated perse cution, who felt disgusted with the profligacy daily witnessed at elections, who wished well to the institutions of the country, and who desired their improvement rather than their destruc tion, could do otherwise than wish well to this question, and give his every effort to free this popular arm of freedom from the chains with which it was now shackled. He believed the people desired nothing more than this protection, and he trusted that the House would grant it to them. Mr. B. HO Y (as we understood) rose to explain, amidst cries of spoke. In reference to some expressions which had fallen from an Hon. Member respecting the power which the Government would acquire by the Ballot, he begged to state that so long as individuals could return thirty or forty Mem bers to that House, and as long as the 101. franchise existed in towns, there was nothing to dread from the power of the Government.—( Cries of " Spoke " and " Question.") Mr. J. G A SKILL said the substitution of secret for open voting would be immediately attended with the moral degra dation of the electors, because a system of fraud would be en couraged by it which would inevitably lead to the worst social consequences. He was as much opposed as any man to the retaliation occasionally exercised by landlords against refrac tory tenants in periods of contested elections ; but the Ballot would not put an end to a practice so reprehensible. This infernal system of secret voting—for infernal he felt compelled to call it--would have the effect of destroying all confidence between man and man, even in those relations in the social state where it was most required.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member then referred to the opinion of -Mr. Canning and (we believe) Mr. Burke, to prove that the former regarded the Ballot as conferring the possession of irresponsible power upon one portion of the community ; while the latter had expressed it as his belief that the integrity of private ho nour was the surest safeguard for any public trust.—( Cries of " Hear.") The downfall of Rome, as the Hon. Member for Reading, had remarked with much truth and learning, was stated by Cicero to be coeval in date with the introduction of the mode of secret voting. With such an historical fact be fore them would that House ever consent to risk the conse quences to this country ?—( Hear.) The United States had been introduced to exemplify the operation of the Ballot, and the wonders it worked there had no doubt not been extenuated. But he ( Mr. G.) would remind the House that it was not legislating for a Republic—( Hear)—consequently, that the example was of no effect as a guide. Mr. RICHARDS congratulated the Hon. Member who had sat down on the eloquence of his observations, and stated that he had never heard such a promising speech from so young a Member during his experience of that House.—(Laughter.) He ( Mr. Richards) should explain briefly why he meant to give his vote against, instead of for, the motion of the Hon. Member for London. At the election for Knaresborough— (Laughter)—he was himself a severe sufferer from the want of the protection which the Ballot would afford against intimida tion and persecution of all kinds. Letters had been sent from London to the Whig Nobility and Gentry in the neighbour hood to vote and influence the votes of their tradespeople and dependants in favour of the Whig Candidate and against him. —( Laughter.) Their servants were in consequence sent out in all directions, and many electors of the town were from t hat reason prevented from giving him their votes. The tradesmen were especially obnoxious to that influence. All which he could have verified upon oath, if necessary. Smarting under the effects of this course of conduct on the part of his oppo nents, he confessed that, in the moment of soreness and irri tation, he had leaned to the opinion that a protection was ne cessary ; and he had therefore promised his friends to give the subject his best consideration.—(Laughter.) He had, however, given them no promise ; because, as he then alleged, he was afraid he might commit himself rashly, while his bet ter judgment was under the influence of a natural feeling of re sentment.—( Hear, and laughter.) So much he felt bound to say in explanation of the vete he was about to give on this question. He should next offer his reasons for that vote. It was quite impossible not to give the utmost credit for good intentions to His Hon. Friend the Member for London in bringing forward the question before the House ; and to be lieve otherwise than that he did it from a most pure and philo sophic conviction of its probable utility.—(Laughter.) The motion before the House, however, divested of all its extra neous matter, appeared to him (Mr. R.) to resolve itself into the simple question—was it right or safe to take away the po litical influence possessed and exercised by property, and con fer it on the democracy ?—( Hear.) He thought answering it in the affirmative would be dangerous in the last degree to property—to the social institutions of the country—and even to the democracy itself.—( Hear, hear.) Scenes would be enacted in the country such as men shuddered to read of elsewhere.—(Cries of " Oh, and laughter.) These consequences had been overlooked by the Hon. Member for London. There was one argument which might be strongly urged against the question, the absence of all necessity for it. Twenty years since lie ( Mr. R.) might have willingly adopted the Utopian notions of his Hon. Friend the Member for Lon don ; but the experience of that period of time had made him desirous of leaving well alone. The effect of innovation in established institutions was dreadful. In France—( Cries of " Question ")—the first act of the Convention was extending the franchise to all who paid taxes. What was the conse quence ? Why, that the highest promise and most reckless daring obtained the representation of the country, and that ultimately the poissardes of Paris came to be the dictators of all constituencies within their influence or reach.—( Cries of " Question.) Lord J. RUSSELL would now avow that he did not con ceive that by voting for the Reform Bill, or by bringing for ward that measure, he was obliged to refrain from voting for the Ballot at any future time should he be of opinion that the Ballot was really necessary to the good of the country. He could only add, that when lie had brought forward the Re form Bill he had then stated that he considered - the questions of the Vote by Ballot, and that of the Duration of Parliament, to be separate questions, upon which those who brought for ward the measure of Reform, or who supported that measure, were at liberty to take subsequently any view that circum stances might render necessary. He had, however, at the same time added, that, with respect to the Ballot, he hoped that Parliament would for a long time pause before it ven tured to give to persons the right of exercising an irresponsible power; for if it should ever introduce a system of secret voting, in preventing the influence of the bad over the good, it would likewise prevent the influence of the good over the bad. His sentiments now were very little different from those which he bad entertained then, and he could assure the House that they had been very little shaken by anything that had fallen from his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Liskeard. His Hon. and Learned Friend had pointed out his ideas of the method of carrying into effect the vote b:, Ballot, but his Noble Friend the Member for Northumber land, in reply, had shown that secret voting would by no means be secured by such machinery. The Noble Lord had shown that after all such contrivances, still would land lords, and all who now exercised an influence at elections, be able to find out how their tenants and dependants had voted, and consequently they would be able to exert as great an influence at all contested elections as they had done under the previously-existing system of open voting. His Hon. and Learned Friend had not, in his opinion, shows: any sufficient grounds to induce the House to abandon the old method of voting, and to adopt a system so new to the Constitution of the country, and so contrary to all its long- ..! .urvovnom. rra , • _ 7T—T.14.1: - _ established habits. The country must still trust to the forbear. ante of landlords over the tenants that had a right to It would seem like a very bad precaution if the House were to adopt this new and untried method, if, after all, it was to afford no security further than what the country already possessed against landlords using their influence tyrannically. He was not one of those who denied that, at present, in very many cases an undue, he would say in some cases a tyrrannical, in fluence was exercised over voters ; nor did he, however agree with his Hon. Friend the Member f o r Knaresborough, that it was proper to prevent the influence of democracy by extend ing the influence of property so far as to restrain men from giving their votes according to their consciences. He had great confidence that the influence which was now so often exercised in a tyrannical manner would not, in the course of time, and under the progress of public opinion, be so exercised. He was willing to trust to this remedy, rather than to seek a remedy in the Ballot, and he felt assured of an increasing or progressive spirit of forbearance on the part of those whose property enabled them to exercise an influence over voters. In his view of the subject, the probability was, that as public opinion gained ground, now that the people of England had the power of choosing their Representatives under the Reform Bill, the exercise of influence to which he had alluded would become more and more odious every day, and that it would be gradually forborne. His Hon. add Learned Friend had stated that great influence had been unduly exercised in the late election for the county of Devon. He was not going into the circumstances of that election ; but he must be al lowed to state, that in many of such instances the exercise of the influence had personally been most painful to him, because many had voted for him at a sacrifice of personal interests, whilst others had voted under influence against him who had voted for him on the previous occasion. But the question was, whether the power was exercised generally and extensively, or not? He could only say, that in the former Devonshire elec tion, although he had been opposed, and warmly opposed, the same degree of influence had not been exercised, and persons who had been upon his Committees until the election had com menced, had been compelled to turn against him even on the day previous to the election. This influence was net am ordi nary degree of influence. It was not the influence usually exercised at elections, but it had been thought that the elec tion was one in which a great triumph might be obtained, and a most exaggerated importance had been attached to it by those who had been opposed to him. Men had even supposed that by a triumph over him at that election, all the sinecures and abuses of the Irish Church might be preserved.—( Cries of " Oh, oh," from the Opposition benches.) And they had been so sanguine as to think that all abuses whatever, both in Church and in Corporations, would be kept up if they could obtain a triumph over him on that occasion.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") In fact they had attached a very false and exaggerated importance to the election in every respect, and in no former election had he ever known the influence spoken of carried to such a length. His belief, however, was, that if the Reform Bill were allowed to go on without any great change, its tendency would be to gradually, though slowly, establish a freedom of election, and that cases of undue interference on the part of the landlords would become very rare and unfre- ' quent in the course of a few years. Was it too much to ask that after so great a constitutional change as the Reform Bill the House should pause for a time, and see if it would not pro duce the effects which had been originally anticipated, and which it had already, to a very great extent, fulfilled? Ano ther argument of his Honourable and Learned Friend had been that, although landlords under the Ballot might find out how tenants and dependants had voted, if they spoke the truth, they would have no difficulty in uttering falsehoods in reply to questions on the subject. He (Lord J. Russell) could not say that the question of the Ballot came recommeuded to him with any special force or favour, when its advocates assured him that a very great portion of voters throughout the kingdom, in answer to the question of what part they had taken in the election, would be induced to answer by a direct falsehood. He would fairly and freely say that his con viction was that the electors would give no such answer. He believed that the Ballot would not have the effect of produc ing any such falsehood, nor, in his opinion, would it have the effect of producing secresy.—( Hear.) In every village it would be inquired how many persons had voted, and how they had voted, and he believed that the general result would be that persons would have no hesitation in speaking the truth upon the subject. The Noble Lord the Member for Northumberland had saielAhat he thought the system of Bal lot would produce injurious effects even with respect to bri bery. Where there was no scrutiny into votes, it was by far more easy to distribute wholesale bribery. Whilst he thought that the system of vote by Ballot did not come so recommended to him as to induce him to adopt it, at the same time he could not but consider that, under any circum stances, it was to be viewed as a change at variance with all the common notions and habits of the people, with all the established practices of Parliament, and with the entire con stitutional history of the country. Let the Hon. Members look at the Courts of Justice. The Judges pronounced their opinions not by Ballot, but openly. It was true that the de liberations of Juries were secret, but then, on the other hand, they were obliged to be unanimous in their verdict. Let them then consider the proceedings of the two Houses of Parliament. The deliberations of the two Houses were open deliberations, and the conduct, as well as the votes, of every Member, was known to his constituency and to the kingdom in general. The same might be said with respect to the Exe cutive Ministers of the Crown. le was true that they de liberated in secret, bnt if they wished to yropose any measure the result of that deliberation became thereby known, and the Ministers were to stand or fall by the discussions that took place on the merits of the case. In fact, it was tie wholesome practice of the country that all functionaries, that all persons whatsoever, that exercised any authority over life, limb, or the liberty of their fellow-subjects, should exercise it under the responsibility of the controul of public opinion, and this had always proved to be the most wholesome of all checks upon their actions. But it was proposed that in this instance alone the act of voting for a representative in. Parliament, should be an act of secrecy, an act subject to no responsibility whatever. He must at once say that without a proof of the absolute necessity of such a system—without he was forced to adopt it by the most positive necessity—without he was c'r.- vinced that it was the only way in which men could give their votes fairly and freely, he could not be brought to adopt such a system of secrecy. He would give voters at elections, like all other persons exercising other powers, the means of voting openly before the world ; and he firmly believed that in the end, although a partial exercise of undue influence might for a time exist, yet in the end a free election of Members of Parliament would be established, and he believed that the country was now arriving at that point, and that the present House of Commons was a fair representation of the people of England. He should decidedly oppose the motion. Lord STANLEY rejoiced at the declaration he had just heard from the Noble Lord, for the speech the Noble Lord had just delivered had afforded to his mind the satisfactory assu rance that it was the settled purpose of the present Govern ment of Lord Melbourne, as it had been the determination of the Government of Earl Grey, to resist the introduction into that House of the question of the Ballot. If he were satisfied with the tone of the speech of his Noble Friend, he must con fess that he was the more surprised at the course which the Noble Lord had adopted on this occasion.—( Cheers.) He should have thought that the Noble Lord, having made up his mind consistently with the pledges that had been given upon the subject by Earl Grey, and in accordance with those pledges that had been given by Lord Althorp on the introduction of he Reform Bill—that the Noble Lord having made up his mind to resist all future encroachments upon the Constitution, he would have pursued a course more consistent with the greatness of the subject, and have deemed it more expedient to set the question at once at rest by a direct negative.— ( Cheers.) This would have been more eligible than, by moving the previous question, to induce the House to come to a decision inconsistent with the grounds on which the case was really resisted. In 1833, in 1834, there had been no such hesitation in meeting this question.—( Hear, hear.) Im mediately after he had felt it his painful duty to quit the Government of which Earl Grey was the head, his Lord ship had thought it necessary in the House of Lords to express broadly and decidedlj his sentiments with respect to the.general policy he had pursued, and especially with re spect to the great measure of Parliamentary Reform. He had said that in introducing the Reform Bill he had thought it right to make the measure extensive, in order that he might take his stand on it, and consider it as a final measure. This was not the first time that the question of the Ballot had been introduced into the discussions of that House, andby the Hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London. But how was the measure met by Earl Grey in 1833—by the previous question ?—( Hear, hear.) No—he met it on by a far higher principle of consistency and honour.—( Hear, hear.) Did he meet it upon the ground of the pledges that had been given by one side of the House, and received by the other— on the ground that those who bad supported and those who had opposed Reform had reserved to themselves the question of the Ballot ? No—Earl Grey met the question on a higher principle of honour. He did not resort to the previous ques tion ; but he met the case by the direct negative, and was supported by a great majority of the House, by a majority of more than two to one. He would read Lord Althorp's words on that occasion, and then let the House consider the deter mined manner in which he had met the question. Lord Al thorp had said that he appealed to every Gentleman that heard it. This, recollect the House, was on the motion in favour of the Ballot, brought forward by the Hon. Member for the City of London, that had made the motion now pending be fore the House. Yes—the leader in that House of Earl Grey's Government, the leader of th. 3 first Reformed Parlia ment; had said, that although his private opinion was in favour of the Ballot, he felt that, in point of honour and duty, he was bound to meet the motion, not with the previous ques tion, but with the direct negative. He appealed to every Gentleman in that House, during the whole proceedings on the Reform Bill, whether the promoters of the measure had not declared that, as far as a Reform of Parliament was con cerned, the Reform Bill was a final measure ? He (Lord Stanley) might be told that this pledge did not include the Ballot, but he would reply that Lord Althorp'e speech was de livered in opposition to the motion in favour of the vote by Ballot.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") Why, he asked, was not the present a fit time for discussing the question of the Ballot? --( Hear.) When could the time be fitter ? The House might at that moment go into all the facts and merits of the case as sell as it had done in 1833, or as it could by any possibility do in 1837. He had great doubts how far he could accede to the proposition, that circumstances did not allow the question to be settled at the present instant. For his part, he (Lord Stanley) would not enter into the question of the South Devon election. The Learned Member for Liskeard had entered pretty elaborately into an analysis of the votes, and had told the House that of the householders and freeholders, the majority of the householders had voted for his Noble Friend, but that the scale had been turned by Tory magistrates, Tory landlords, and the Tory clergy.—( Cries of " No, no.") He was certain that the Hon. and Learned - Gentleman had said that the result `t'ncT~v Z2V~~ ction svi 11, fly bined a re- erous rence if, the men ation ;,apes vhich ;übtle afi 111 Gen - It is lower the 3cl by l ecu- fate :onse" easy after Villa' r Pr' ch ev ,i t the You ebb ; lotion ngliSb nata- great , ct the 'r i ce mine!' as it point for wive" ■ II