The Express.
London, England, 1862-07-02 00:00:00

BALLOT BILL.

Mr. BERlf.ELEloinovea the second reading of this
bill. Hs found himself in an awkward position in being,
for the first time, called upon to ask the house to read the
till • seeped time. It was not his fault that he was salted
to do no now, for he was aware that there was • majority of
437 members, who, at one time or another, had recorded
' their votes against the measure, while there wee
only 330 who had voted in its favour. He had
therefore very little hope of carrying it, unless the
people out of doors came forward and expressed their
opinion unmistakably in its favour. After referriog to the
attempt to count him out on the last occasion, and observ-
ing that the gentlemen had never been so met before, he
said that as regarded argument, the advocates of the
ballot stood perfectly triumphant, but there was a
load of dust and cobwebs which was all times ended-
' voured to be thrown over the question' a part
of the press taking the lead. As an instance the Teats
stated that Mr. Beticely could only assemble 80 members
when be brought on his bill, while the editor of that paper
had in his hands at the time a list of 112 pairs. He would
endeavour to place before the house the exact position of
the ballot. He had in his band • table of statistics of the
electoral bodies of England, the area, the re-
! presentation, the population, &c. He fist took
the metropolis, returning eighteen members. The
City of London returned four members ; Westminster,
two member; Tower Herniate, two members ; Lambeth,
two members; Southwark, two members; Finsbury,
. two members • all of whom had voted for the
ballot. Manchester, Birmingham, Salford, Ply-
; mouth, Bradford, Glasgow, the Wart Riding, and
other great constituencies, including Brighton and
Gloucester, returned members who were likewise
supporters of the ballot. The result of these returns was,
, that the places he enumerated, containing 8,014,000 Inha-
bitants and 2"03,246 registered electors, return :d
I forty-one members all strong supporters of the ballot.
He was asked why he brought forward the question now,
when there was a general apathy on the subject of reform,
and when the most earnest reformers were silent on the
subject. He held that, being sent to the house, as they
were to make wholesome laws and remove unwholesome
abuses, it was • satire to regard them as a mere maccaroni
bound by party and having no will of their own. Indi-
vidually, as far as be was concerned, he would endeavour to
do his duty. He did not wish to make any
alteration in the electoral code, all he desired to do was
to carry out that code in its integrity and to enable those
electors who were qualified to vote to exercise their votes
freely. He was at • toes to see what there was revolutionary
in this, yet they were always met with the word. " revo-
lution," whenever the question of the ballot was
mooted. The same class of argument had been urged
against the repeal of the corn laws, yet behad lived to see
the strongest opponents of the corn law repeal the most
strenuous free traders. They were told thatjthe ballot had failed
in the great republic of America, and with it equal electoral
districts, annual parliaments, and all the rest Because our
American brethren bad fallen into a civil war republican in-
stitutions had fallen to • diecount. What, was civil war to
be a test of constitution ? If so, what became of monarchy
in this country, which had had three civil wan in 230
years? If so, what was to become of monarchy
in Italy, where a man with • red shirt had
driven out an army with • monarch at their
head. Monarchy was not at • discount because civil war
hal driven monarchies from their thrones; on the contrary,
we all knew that under such • monarch as we had the hap-
piness to possess monarchy was the safeguard of political
liberty. He denied that the ballot was • part of republican
institutions. It wait only a barrier against aris-
tocracy, moneyocracy, or any other " orrery " which
ioterferred with the free exercise of the electoral right. He
contended that the action of the ballot in America was
distinctly and decidedly conservative, and opposed to
universal suffrage. Universal suffrage reduced democracy to
a mobocracy—and how did a mobocracy act? By the mob
law—the bowie knife and the tar barrel. But the ballot
gave protection to the man of good feeling against
this tyranny. America afforded a good illustration of the
difference between the ballot and open voting. In Ver.
ginia there were a number of old families who boasted
of English descent, and were food of adhering to English
institutions and habits. They adhered to open voting, their
opinion being much the same as Lord Derby's, that secret
voting was political cowardice. They said, let us see
how every man votes, for if be does not vote as we'wish we
will streightway tar and feather him. ("Hear, hear," and
laughter from the liberal benches.) But was there no simi-
larity between the state of things in Virginia and the state
of things in England? If there were no social slaves were
there no political slaves? They did not flog, but the land-
owners hesitated Dot to turn front their homes those who
voted against their landlords' views. This he knew took
plane amongst the landocnscy, sod be believed the same
thing took place amongst the millocracy. (Hear, hear.)
He called the attention of hon. gentlemen of conservative
principles to the evidence taken before Mr. Grote's com-
mittee, showing that if the ballot existed conservatives
would be returned where now liberals were elected.
Sir G. Grey, Mr. Newdegate, and Mr. Lysley opposed the
motion ; Mr. Pot... supported it. The house then divided:
For the second reading
Against it 2ll
Majority
—B5
The bill was accordingly lest.
[Left mittieg.]