The Sun.
London, England, 1852-03-31 00:00:00

Right Hon. Gentleman could prove such a state of things as
he argued had existed in America ? Did the House think
that if open voting had been established there that intimida.
tion and bribery would be checked? It was the simple
fact of a disturbance having occurred in New
York, which might have taken place anywhere, that
furnished the Right Honourable Gentleman with an
argument against the ballot. When he said that the Go-
vernor thought it advisable to recommend the Legislature to
take measures to put a stop to bribery and corruption, he
should recollect that there was not one word uttered with
respect to the inefficiency of the ballot.—(Hear, hear.) He
would now read a letter which he had received from an Ame-
rican gentleman of great respectability. (The Hon. Gentle-
man read the letter to which he referred. It described the
destruction of a ballot. box at an election riot, in one of the
states of the American Union, and concluded with the fol-
lowing passage :—" The destruction of the ballot-box will
at once point to the fact that it was held in no great estima-
tion by the promoters of intimidation and bribery ; and I
think I may venture to make the calculation that we shall
find that our local Legislature will pass a stringent law on the
urns subject
sof
h ohl
dh e bribery,loc a a
terdi recommend
in a place
ofitohr set
sienc
hfrui
ttyur
. )t_h e(
Hy oetai
It was.highly probable, he thought, we might hear at no
distant period that other disturbances had arisen, and that
other ballot-boxes had been broken up. In the Carolinas, for
instance, in Alabama, in Maryland, and Virginia, the ballot-
box was the protection of those who wished to do away with
slavery —( Hear. hear.) In those States the ballot-box pro-
tected the advocate of emancipation from Lynch law. In
the ballot-box in the Southern States bad taken root the
benign principles of Christianity, and from the ballot-box
,ushed forth the glorious truth that, of whatever colour
the skin of a man might be, in the eye of God his soul was
but of one hue. (Hear, hear.) When, therefore, they saw
the enemies of the abolition of s'avery desiring to put aside
the ballot-box in America, and when they saw also those
who wished to keep Englishmen in serfdom declining to give
them the protection of the ballot-box here, then he said a
ish•e rtya
vsothr
ro n
ogt c
tahs ee had
ob
te.el
(mcabdese or
su. t), a nil
hteh aatr
ga
hcmaseeh et
sn t ihrseel yd
against the ballot were merely colourable, and gentlemen
opposed it, not because they doubted its efficacy, but be-
cause they believed it would be perfectly elicacious.—(oh,
oh.) He was strongly brought to this conclusion by read-
ing an account of a large Conservative meeting, which took
place the other day in the city of Bristol. That meeting
consisted of a very influential body of Conservatives, who
had met to select a candidate in the place of his Honourable
Friend and Colleague (Mr. P. Miles), who had expressed his
intention to retire from the representation of the city at the
approaching election. The chair was taken by Mr. Vining,
a gentleman of great respectability, with whom be (Mr.
Berkeley) had the honour of being acquainted, and the sen-
timents which fell from that worthy gentleman were strictly
Conservative, at the same time that they were full of can-
dour and redolent of the most Arcadian simplicity.—
(Lauelater.)__B_Y way of illustration, he begged to quote a
short extract from Mr. visung's speecn, which ho hod takon
from the Bristol 'Gazette. Mr. Vining said: "What is the
use of registration if a man is to vote by ballot? And what
is the use of inquiring bow a man is going to vote when he
may conceal that vote by the ballot?"—(Laughter.)
." Why," said Mr. Vining, " a man may register one
way, and vote another!" Now, perhaps Honourable
Gentlemen were not au fait in discovering the meaning of
that expression. It meant simply this, that political
partisans paid defaulters' rates—and churchwardens were
adepts at that practice—and thus secured the insertion of
the man's name on the register, one of the modes this which
were resorted to of bribing beforehand.--(Hear, hear.)
" Why," said Mr. Vining, " a man may register one way
and vote another," " Suppose," continued Mr. Vining,
" you give a man 51., he may receive the money and vote
another way.—(Laughter and cheers ) You are making a
man disguise his real sentiments and meaning. You are
making a man determine to conceal his sentiments. If I
purchase a man," said Mr. Vining, " and I am not able to
know how he is going to vote, he may vote against me,
though he has said he will vote for me.—(Great laughter
and cheers; and Voices—' That is what we want; you
would not then have us under your thumb.)"—(Laughter
and hear, hear.) " Gentlemen, said Mr. Vining, waxing
a little warm, "I feel that the majority of you are
with me ; now then, I will ask, let us eo-operate cor-
dially in supporting true Conservative principles—(Loud
laughter) and promoting the welfare of the State,"
said Mr. Vining "and our own interests."
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) There, then, was a candid
Gentleman, and he (Mr. Berkeley) would be equallycandid.
What were the faults which Mr. Vining found with the
ballot ? It would ruin his politico-commercial transac-
tions. Poor injured gentleman ! When he had bought his
man, it would be altogether doubtful whether his living bale
of goods would be delivered to the consignee.— (Laughter.)
It was not because the vote was given in secret, but be-
cause the 51. note was sunk in the ballot-box.—
(Hear, hear.) With regard to the ballot not stop-
ping intimidation, why it was a farce to argue the subject.
The fact was that Gentleman refused to trust the people.
They believed that the tendencies of the people were de-
mocratic. But in his (Mr. Berkeley's) opinion such
a feeling as that very much resembled the feeling of a man
who supposed that under the foundation of his house there
war a subterranean fire, and that some day, by some con-
vulsion of nature, a crater must burst forth in his kitchen.—
( Hear, hear, and laughter.) The Noble Lord the Member
for London (Lord J. Russell) told them the other night, on
bringing in his Reform Bill, that he thought the people were
entitled to some reward for their exemplary conduct. Yet,
unfortunately, the Noble Lord was one of those who denied
to the people an act of simplejustice.—(Hear.) The Legis-
lature had defined the franchise, settled the electoral quali-
fication, and invested a man with the privilege of voting.
How, then, in the name of justice and of common sense,
could they refuse to protect the elector in the exercise of
his chartered rights ?—(Cheers.) They who refused to
trust the people now, did they refuse to trust them on the
10th of April, 1848? If the people were so ill-
disposed then as they were represented to be now, where
would Hon. Gentlemen be at this moment? On the 101 of
April, 1848 (continued Mr. Berkeley), you appealed to the
people pro aria et focis, and they stood at your thresholds
armed, and were cherished guests at your tables and firesides.
But when I ask von to give them the means of voting as
they please, and trust them with the use of the franchise,
you deny it In conclusion, the Hon. Gentleman observed
that, although he was wedded to the principle of the ballot,
he was not equally so to the details. All he asked was, a
fair trial of the ballot. If Parliament liked, let it be per-
missive.—(hear.) Let it be adopted only in those cases
where it might be demanded by a certain number of the
electors, and where the constituencies numbered 1,000 voters
and upwards if they pleased. But, at all events, he hoped
the House would permit him to bring in a Bill to give pro-
tection to the electors at the polling-booths, and, in so doieg,
perform an act of abstract justice to the people, and at the
same time do honour to themselves.—(Radical cheers.)
Mr. BARROW said the lion. Gentleman who had just
spoken was rather unfortunate in having alluded to the last
election for South Nottinghamshire; for the fact of his (Mr.
Barrow's) standing in the House of Commons at that mo-
ment was the best possible proof of the absence of intimidas
tion on the occasion to which he referred.—(Cheers.) He
knew that, in part, he owed his success at that election to
the assistance of some gentlemen who were themselves
friends of the vote by ballot not because they sought it
for their own sakes, but because they believed it would be a
protection to their friends and neighbours. They were well
aware of his sentiments with respect to the ballot when they
gave him their votes, and he felt perfectly satisfied that they
would give him credit for the honesty of his principles at
least, in venturing as he did now to declare that he was not
a convert to the necessity of the ballot, and that, so far from
believing it would deliver the people from a state of serfdom,
he believed it would increase bribery and demoralisation to
such an extent as would be positively frightful to con-
template.— (Cheers.) Allusion had been made to the
advantage of the ballot in the clubs. But for his part, he
confessed that a large portion of his objections to the ballot
were the result of the ill-feeling he had witnessed in clubs
in cases of black-balling. He had seen so much mischief
arise from it that even in those cases where, through the
honour of the scrutineers and members, perfect secrecy was
observed, he had come to the conclusion that
the system had better be abolished. He was
rather surprised to hear the secrecy of the ballot
assumed as a matter of necessity. In proof, however, of
the fact that it did not secure secrecy, he might refer to that
country which had already been referred to so often, and in
which the ballot had been in operation for the greatest
length of time. He did not believe that secrecy ever had
been or ever would'be obtained ; for he found that in Massa-
chusetts. one of the oldest states of the American Union, the
bere him
Legislature appointed a Committee last year with the express
wso
ebhej
ree
ect
cht
ye or
uf
thchdoanet
rssi
etdhce
rerei
enh
yga
oi
tn.
which w
Ah
ha
dt me
surelya nn e
wt
iht they schoc uh d a she ceuxr
farmomplethaeballot really did
s that before him, ed to doubt
ference to the ballot as a cure for bribery, he thought
he heard the Hon. Member for Montrose say not long
inseparablevt h
r e-
ago that he did not believe it would diminish bribery in
small constituencies, at least; and if it would not diminish
bribery in small constituencies, then he (Mr. Barrow) wanted
to know how it was _likely to do so in large constituencies,
because a large constituency was, after all, only an aggregate
or mass of small constituencies, and bribery might be car-
ried on in one as well as the other.—(Hear, hear.) Upon
this point, too, he would again refer to America, where the
Legislature of the State of New York had declared that bri-
bery had increased, and was carried to a fearful extent,
under the ballot, and that it was necessary to take steps for
providing a remedy. Being convinced, then, that neither
intimidation nor bribery had diminished under the operation
of the ballot, he must frankly admit that he was still op-
posed to the measure. He believed it would be productive
of an amount of hypocrisy and demoralization perfectly
frightful to contemplate; and that the best remedy for the
evils complainedof would consist in elevating the moral tone
of the people. The fact that the independent constituency
of South Nottinghamshire had carried his election against
the influence of the powerful body who were opposed to him
individually would of itself also tend to the same result.
Sir B. HALL granted that the case of South Notting-
hamshire was a remarkable instance of the people having
exercised the right of voting in opposition to the will of the
aristocracy. But it should not be forgotten that at that elec-
tion the Noble Dukes and Noble Lords of that county drove
the electors up to the poll to vote against the Hon. Gentle-
man just
out their object so far as the election of the Hon.
Gentleman was concerned, yetritheali) is that d cometewatloalst e
but an isolated case,
represented
and formed no reason why voters in other parts of the coun-
try should not enjoy the protection of the ballot. With re-
ngnarmduteoretdhe
mboorroeugthhahne
2(o.Sioor B. Hall)
impossible, from the circumstance that the constituency
could exist.—(oh, oh, and a laugh.) The election previous
to his own in that borough did not cost the candidates
more than 300/. He was inclined to think that the riots
referred to as having occurred in New York had arisen,
not from the voting being by ballot, but the maladministration of the election law. If ion.. Mefrom
m-
bers wished to see the operation of the ballot
in our own country, he would refer them to the annual parochial elec-
tions in the parishes of St. George's, Alarylebone, and St.
Pancras, which were conducted with the greatest order and
propriety. He should not detain the House longer as there
was a motion en the paper for the assimilating of the county
and borough franchise, which Hon. Members anxious for a
ascwrieelsl
dissolution were desirous should be discussed, se
as the ether
should be known. order that
of " Oh," and
He could not understand such interruption on a
the opinions ilnvio.nsvvoifLLMieAmmbsers
roonseon e side
amidst
"Divide."
question of such importance.—(Renewed cries of
made in 1847 it appeared that Divide.")
By a return 214 boroughs,
with a constituency of only 161,500, returned 329 Members
—a majority of that House. It was notorious that the con-
flicts of the two great aristocratic parties in this country for
power depended entirely on the amount of money spent in
elections. From the report of the Committee moved for in
1841 by the Hon. Member for Sheffield, it appeared that
the Harwich election cost 8,3001., though there were only
187 voters, and that the Nottingham election cost 16,000/,
though only 673 electors voted.—(Cries of " Divide.") No
fewer than 86 Acts had been passed by Parliament to pre-
vent corruption and bribery. His belief was that the ballot
was the only remedy, and be should, therefore, give the mo-
tion Ili@ cordial support.

EVENING, MARCH 31, 1852.

Mr. B. COCHRANE said it was a common thing for
Hon. Members who introduced a motion to imagine the
presence of some distinguished foreigner in this country,
and to ask what opinion he would form of their proceed-
ings. The Hon. Member who introduced the present mo-
tion had supposed the presence of some foreigner at our
elections, and had asked the House to imigine what opinion
he would form about them. As such a foreigner would
require a cicerone, he would advise the Hon Member for
Bristol to recommend him, if he wished to obtain a know-
ledge of our electorial system, to take for his guide the
celebrated Coppock. —(A laugh.) The Hon. Member for
Bristol had congratulated the House on his present motion
being opportune. He took a different view. In all the
discussions of this question of the ballot, he never heard
the reciprocity of the ballot started. He should like to
know what their constituents would think if Members were
to resort to the ballot in voting in that Rouse. If any
candidate at the next election should make sunh a proposal
he thought the distinguished foreigner would soon see that
the popular view was not in favour of such a poposal.
America had been referred to, as it often was, by Hon.
Gentlernen opposite; but America was a republic, and we
were Wising under a constitutional monarchy. If the Hon.
Gentlemen wished to see the result of the ballot and
universal suffrage in America, let him read the report
of a late debate in Congress, and he would tied an
interesting controversy between a Mr. Brown and a
'Mr. Willcox, which ended in Mr. Brown rushing up to Mr.
illcox and knocking him down.—(Cries of " Oh.") There
was another point of difference between the two countries.
In America, before a Member could propose any change in
the Constitution, there must be a majority of two-thirds of
Congress in its favour, or a majority of two-thirds of the
states; and after being proposed, and before it could be car-
ried into execution, there must be a majority of three-fourths
of the states in its favour, and not, as in this country, a mere
majority of votes. Reference had also been made to France.
Was the Manchester school satisfied with the result of uni-
versal suffrage in France ?—( Hear.) Were they gratified
with the proceedings of the 2d December, and with the re-
cent inauguration of constitutional government at the
Tuileries?—(Hear.) The ballot had been described in better
language than any he could use by au Hon. Member of that
House. The Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon's
opinion—he meant his former opinion—(A laugh)—of the
ballot was stated in the debate on Mr. Grote's motion in
1842. On that occasion the Right Hon. Gentleman charac-
terised voting by ballot as inconsistent with the English
character, and added that no honest man wanted the
ballot.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Honourable Gentleman
went on to state that the only persons to whom the ballot
would be available would be " dirty, hypocritical scoun-
drels."—(Laughter.) Lately, however, the Right Hon.
Gentleman had expressed at Carlisle opinions not certainly
fifyourable to the ballot, but very much softened compared
with his former opinions; and he added that circumstances
might change his convictions on that point. Not content
in 1842 with stating that only "dirty, hypocritical ecoun-
_ areas" needed the ballot, the Right Hon. Baronet went on to
state that it afforded an opportunity for a man who pretended
friendship to practice deception—that it offered a means
for the gratification of revenge and bitter hatred—and that
it was demanded only by the most contemptible sort of vaga-
bonds, merely to lend to a lie the appearance of a truth.
(Laughter.) One could not improve upon such language,
and it would be difficult to string more epithets together so
expressive of bitter contempt.— (Cheers.) In his (Mr.
Cochrane's) opinion they might as well try to protect voters
from the east wind as from the influence of landed proprie-
tors. He was in favour of open and manly voting, and was
opposed to a system which would result in a tissue of false-
hood. That evil was powerfully touched on in debate by
one now no more—a great ornament of that House, and
whose loss they all lamented. In the debate on the ballot in
1842, Mr: Shell admitted that the ballot would enable a
man to promise his vote one way, and go to the poll and
vote the other way.—(" Hear, hear," from the Opposition.)
He confessed that he felt surprised to find Hon. Gentlemen
opposite cheer that sentiment, because it was one which
would justify the most flagrant political demoralisation.
The Noble Lord the Member for London had not thought
proper to introduce the ballot into his recently proposed re-
form scheme; but he did not feel certain that the Noble Lord
might not hereafter pass into the lobby, in conjunction with
the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon, with the
supporters of the ballot. He (Mr. B. Cochrane) looked upon
the ballot as a most objectionable measure. It was easy to
point out anomalies in the working of the British Constitu-
tion ; and the writings of the French Socialists were no doubt
filled with the finest theories. But no attempt had ever yet
been made to carry out those theories which had not utterly
and ruinously failed, while the British Constitution had for
ages given to the people of this country an amount of
security and of freedom such as no other nation had ever
enjoyed.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. COBDEN said he would promise the House that he
would not trespass at any length on their time in dis-
cussing a question which had already been more exhausted
in argument than any perhaps that had ever been brought
under their consideration. It was an historical fact that
Mr. Grote, in the course of his discussions on the ballot,
had brought to the subject a degree of logical power
and mental acumen, which:had gained for his advocacy of
the measure the most perfect intellectual triumph
ever known.—( Marks of dissent on the Ministerial benches.)
He (Mr. Cobden) did not mean to discuss the fallacies
which had been put forward by the Hon. Gentleman who
bad just addressed the House. He would not seek to point
out to that Hon. Gentleman the difference which existed
between a Member of Parliament who came voluntarily
into that House to represent the opinions of others, and an
elector who had merely to give effect to his own individual
opinion. That difference was one of those points which had
already been demonstrated. Neither did he intend to discuss
the thousand-times repeated objection of the Right Hon Gen-
tleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that if the ballot
were given to a limited constituency it would convert
that constituency into an oligarcht; for that objection had
been already a thousand times answered by this argument
—that if the unenfranchised were fit to dictate to the en-
franchised, they ought themselves to be entrusted with the
right of voting. (Hear, hear.) But Hon. Gentlemen oppo-
site were the very people who refused to extend to them
that right. The intellectual mode of dealing with that
question had already been triumphantly settled.—(Cries of
"Hear, hear," from the Opposition Members, and "No, no,"
on the Ministerial side of the House.) But he
thought there were moral aspects of the question,
which could be better argued at present than they could
have been when Mr. Grote had dealt with the subject 17
years ago, because they had since had an opportunity of
witnessing the effects of the ballot in the elections of a
neighbouring country, under the most exciting circum-
stances, which showed the immense gain this country
would derive from the ballot by the suppression of that
fearful demoralization and violence which disgraced our
elections. He said that the example of France, as regarded
the moral aspect of the question, was conclusive. Six mil-
lions of people had voted in France in one day with universal
suffrage and under the most exciting circumstances • and yet
their votes had been given under the system of the ballot
without the slightest tumult at the polling places. But
how were elections conducted in this country? Why, he
could point out half-a-dozen places in which, although a
few hundred people only had polled, the most violent
scenes had taken place. In the Isle of Wight they had
had an election, accompanied by the most tumultuous pro-
cesdings, and ending in the death of one individual. At
Boston a gentleman had been imprisoned in his own house,
from which he had not been allowed to move. At Har-
wich, before the election had terminated, the mob had
stormed the hustings, and had carried away the materials
of which they had been constructed. What had happened
the other day at Enniskillen ? About 150 people had polled
there, and such a riot had taken place that the armed police
had to be called out, and had charged the mob with drawn
sabres. Those were the scenes which occurred at our elec-
tions. But it was said that there had been a tumult at an
election in New York. Now it should be borne in mind
that all the New York journals had been horrified at that
fact—that almost unprecedented fact, and had declared that
those who had so interfered with the most sacred right of
American citizens ought to be shot like dogs. But was
that the language which was held in this country with re-
spect to similar scenes? By no means. The cases of
Harwich and Boston were laughed at, and the case of En-
niskillen did not even excite a passing remark. That House
had passed a great number of Acts to put an end to bribery
at elections, and they were at present considering a Bill for
constructing a tribunal that would deal with future acts of
bribery. The effect of the adoption of the ballot in this
country would be to repress those outward demonstrations
of opinion which led to so many collisions. It would put
an end to the system of flags and banners, and brass-bends,
and to that drunkenness and disorder which at present
disgraced our elections.—( Hear.) The public mind was daily
becoming more and more favourable to the adoption of the
ballot, because there existed a growing conviction that it
would offer the most effectual remedy for the evils and
abuses by which our elections had hitherto been accompa-
nied. Auother question which had been raised was whether
or not they could make the ballot effectual; and it was said
that it had not been found so in New York. But he be-
lieved that a plan bad been devised by which it could be
carried most successfully into operation. The Legislature
of Massachusetts had appointed a committee two years ago
to inquire into and report upon the best mode of making
the ballot more effectual, and the plan recommended by that
committee was one, he thought, of the moat complete and
satisfactory character. They had proposed that the Govern-
ment should provide adhesive envelopes of a certain form
for all the electors, that those envelopes should be given to
the electors on application to the proper officer, that the
voter, after having written the name of his candidate or
taken a printed ticket with that name, should place it in
the envelope, then seal the envelope, and deposit
it in the ballot-box in the presence of officers
appointed for the purpose. He (Mr. Cobden) be-
lieved that that plan afforded a perfect security for secresy
and a perfect security against fraud ; because all that had to
be done was to take care that the voter placed one envelope
only in the ballot-box, and any envelope that was not pro-
perly filled would be afterwards cancelled. That system
had been adopted in Massachusetts, and had there been found
perfectly successfuL But there were landlords in this coun-
try who would not be very scrupulous in exercising their
power of coercing their tenants. The Noble Lord at present
at the head of the Government had declared, in the month
of June, 1837, that if the ballot were adopted, he, as an
English landlord, would feel it his duty, not only to see
whether an elector who was a dependent of his voted, but to
see him put his ticket in the ballot-box. Now he (Mr.
Cobden) should say he thought that a more unabashed act
of despotism—(Load cries of" Hear, hear," on the Opposition
benches)—a more scandalous outrage against the rights of
citizenship could not possibly be conceived than that a land-
lord should insist on seeing a man as honest, and, perhaps,
as intelligent, as himself, put his ticket in the ballot-urn.
Ile would tell the Noble Lord who was at present
at the head of the farmers' friends, that he
(Mr. Cobden) and those who agreed with him
upon that question would protect the farmers against
such an inquisition; and the plan adopted in Massachusetts
would set at defiance the prying eyes of the Noble Lord or
of any other landlord. On another occasion Lord Derby
had declared that he considered the tenantry of this country
to be the political capital of the landlords—(Hear, hear)—
and it would be for the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor
of the Exchequer to defend, if he could, the language of the
Noble Ebrd upon that subject. On the 22d of February,
1841, the Earl of Derby (then Lord Stanley), in speaking
on the Parliamentary Voters Bill, had said it was known
that any man could ascertain the probable result of a
county election, by finding out who were the great landed
proprietors in the county, and counting the number of oc-
cupiers under them. But was it right, he (Mr. Cobden)
would ask, that the farmers of this country should be alto-
gether deprived of their political rights, and that when they
were made electors a number of faggot votes should merely
be handed over to the landlords?—(Hear, hear.) He be-
lieved that the farmers of England would not beprepared to
hold the franchise upon such a condition ; and if they
should be so lost to all shame, he felt persuaded that the
operatives of this country would not submit to such a
state
of things. He would mention a fact, for the Purpose of
showing the feeling of the operatives upon that subject.
After the introduction of the late Reform Bill of the Nob'e
Lord the Member for London, which would extend the
franchise to Si. householders, so that three.eourths df the
operatives in the manufacturing towns in Yorkshire and
Lancashire would become entitled to a vote—after th e
introduction of that Bill a crowded Put'lic meeting bad been

held in Stockport, and the operatives who attended that
meeting had unanimously agreed that if they did not receive
the protection of the ballot, they would not have the Iran-
chise.—(Loted cries of " Hear, hear," from the Ministerial
benches.) He believed that in coming to that resolution
they had been quite right. It might be thought that a
good many millowners would attempt to coerce the voters
under their control in the same way in which the landlords
had frequently been charged with coercing their dependents.
But he (Mr. Cobden) stood there to protect people who had
votes against undue influence of any kind, whether it pro-
ceeded from a landowner, or a millowner, or a customer, or
a priest, or a mob.—( Hear, hear.) People holding the most
contradictory opinions on every kind of question were em-
ployed is mills, and they ought to be allowed to give, by
their votes, the fullest effect to those opinions. A Roman
Catholic operative ought not to be compelled to vote in
favour of a no-Popery candidate; and an operative who
advocated what was called teetotal principles ought not
to be coerced into the support of a candidate who
was perhaps deluging a borough with intoxicating drinks.
The difficulty they would encounter would be felt more
among shopkeepers in such towns as Halifax and Hud-
dersfield than in such towns as Manchester or Leeds,
where there was a great mercantile community. and where
claeses were not so much divided into manufacturers and
operatives. But in those smaller pl .ces to give the fran-
chise without the ballot would be an unmitigated curse to
the population, and on that view of the question he should
vote against an exteesien of the elective franchise unless
he thought it was certain to lead to the ballot.—
(Hear, hear.) He hoped Honourable Centlemeu would
not go through the terrible process of acting against
all reeding in Hansard, tor in two or three months they
would be called again to speak their convictions and to act
against all the cherished principles of their life; but what-
ever they did, he said, " Don't commit yourself against the
ballot."—(Hear, and laughter.) Honourable Gentlemen
might laugh; bat he said argument had settled it, the moral
aspect had carried it, and it only wanted one more general
election, that is, if Government dare disclose their policy,
which he doubted, on a great question.—(Hear, hear.)
He thought Government were trying to shuffle with that
question.--(" Hear," and Oh, oh.) He said from the first
he never believed Government would dissolve Parliament on
the great question.—(Hear. hear.) Government had tried
to get out of it ; and he had been informed that a Noble
Lord had said that night something in the other House
which led him to believe that the question would be got
rid of by evasion and trickery; but he hoped there was
spirit enough in that House, and if not in that House, in
the country, to bring them to book.—(Hear, hear.) But
if they dissolved Parliament it would be on the bread-
basket and the sugar-basin questions—questions in which
every man, woman, and child in the kfngdom took an inte-
rest.—(Hear, hear.) He could tell them when opinions came
into collision on such questions, they would witness scenes
such as few former elections had ever witnessed.—(Hear.)
If, however, the great question was not settled at the next
election (we understood), we might be certain the Parlia-
ment would be a short-lived one, and that the fact of the
great question remaining unsettled would lead to a dissolu-
tion.—(Hear.) He advised lion. Members not to put them-
selves in a false position, especially the young men.—
( Hear, hear and laughter.) There was hope of men under
forty—they who were above that age only changed their
opinions upon,; compulsion.—( Hear, hear.) He entreated
Hon. Gentlemen, if they could not give an honest vote
on this question, to abstain from voting.—(Hear, hear, and
Oh.) He should vote on the question with the certainty
that in three or four years at furthest there would be very
little difference of opinion on it.—(Hear, hear.)
Captain SCOBELL rose, amid loud cries of "Divide."
He would only detain the House a short time— [Here the
interruption prevented the Hon. Member from being heard.]
The Hon. Member for Bridport had referred to the Chancellor
of the Exchequer's speech, in which he had referred to
what had occurred in New York between two representa-
tives at Washington. The Right Hon. Gentleman did not
see he was playing with edge tools. There were a great
many points in that Right Hon. Gentleman's speech which
ought to be set right, and if the House would allow him five
minutes more.— (Laughter, and Oh) He represented a con-
stituency which sighed—which longed for the ballot—
(Laughter) and therefore, in fairness, the House ought to
give him a few minutes.—(Hear.) He would remind the
Hon. Member for Bridport who had cast reflections on the
Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon, that " they
should not throw stones who lived in glass houses." If he
was not misinformed, that Hon. Gentleman had advocated
the ballot on the hustings.
Mr. WALPOLE said the Honourable Member for the
West Riding had put his opinions in favour of the ballot on
two grounds connected with the political and the moral
aspects of the question. The Hon. Gentleman said, if the
ballot was introduced it would prevent certain evils which
he would point out, and the moral effects would lead
to an improvement of the moral condition of the
people. He could show the Hon. Gentleman and the House
that the ballot, instead of preventing the evils, as the Hon.
Gentleman contemplated, would leave them as they were;
or, rather, add to them.—(Hear.) He could show the Hon.
Gentleman and the House that the moral effects which would
flow from the ballot would, in a moral sense, instead of an
advantage, be detrimental to the morals of the electors.
Before he went into the two questions he would refer to
some remarks of the Hon. Member for the West Riding. The
first had reference to what the Hon. Member said respecting
the ballot; the other had relation to the allusion made by
the Hon. Member to a Noble Lord in the other House. The
Hon. Gentleman said the extension of the franchise without
the ballot would be an unmitigated evil. When the measure
was carried for giving the right to vote to persons in
boroughs and counties occupying houses of 51. value, of
course the Hon. Member would not be found to have voted
in favour of the measure (we understood). The observa-
tions on the Noble Lord he considered were not worthy of
the Hon. Member, for he had not quoted accurately the
words of the Noble Lord.—(Hear, hear.) The words which
the Hon. Member used were very remarkable; he said that
the Noble Lerd at the head of the Government had made use
of the expression that the landlords of England looked on
their tenantry as political capital.
Mr. COBDEN—No, I did not.—(" Oh, oh!" " Order!")
Mr. WALPOLE—I am not misstating what the Hon.
Member said.—(Cheers.)
Mr. COBDEN —I read a quotation from Lord Derby's
speech.—(Order, order.)
Mr. WALPOLE - I believe the words which the Hon.
Member attributed to Lord Derby were, that the tenants of
England were the political capital of their landlords.
Mr. COBDEN I did not say so. —(Loud cries of " Oh,
oh.") The Right Hon. Gentleman is only wasting his own
time and ours in arguing on an unfounded hypothesis.—
(No, no.) I quoted Lord Derby's words from Mansard—
Oh, oh)—and I said, atter some other remarks interspersed,
that he claimed the tenants as his political capital.—(Oh, oh,
and groans.)
Mr. WALPOLE—I should be very sorry to misrepresent
the lion. Member.
Mr. COB DEN—" Capital" is an American phrase.—
(Order, order.)
Mr. WALPOLE—The Hon. Member shall not put me
out by these interruptions.—(Loud cheers.) That the HOD,
Member used the words I have stated, and in the manner I
have stated, I firmly believe, because they were taken down
at the time.—(Continued cheering.) If not, let him retract
them.—(Loud cheers.) The Hon. Member unquestionably
went on to quote the exact language used by the Noble
Lord at the head of the Government; but does that lan-
gauge contain the expression attributed to the Noble Lord
by the Honourable Member?—(Loud cheers.) On the
contrary, it pointed to this, that the occupying tenantry
of counties and the landlords of counties entertained feel-
ings of mutual regard and goodwill towards each other,
and in that way landlords exercised influence over their
tenants. That was the effect of the passage quoted by the
Hon. Member, and it contained nothing to Justify him in
asserting that Lord Derby had said, or ever intended to say,
that the farmers of England were the political capital of
their landlords.—(Cheers.) Now, having corrected what I
think an unfortunate misrepresentation, I will now advert to
the two principal arguments of the lion. Member in favour
of the proposition before the House. The Hon. Member said
that the ballot would prevent bribery, and also the influence
exercised by employers over the employed, and landlords
over tenants. I deny in tote that the ballot would have those
effects, and for these reasons :—ln the first place, it is ad-
mitted that the ballot can only produce these results by
means of absolute secrecy. Now, when Honourable Mem-
bers assimilate the ballot used in political elections
with the ballot used in private clubs, they forget that
in the one case the voters, having only personal consi-
derations to deal with, conceal the manner in which they
vote, while, in the other case—that of the political elec-
tion—men's political opinions are usually well known, and
it would be impossible, therefore, that the requisite secrecy
could be observed.—(Hear, hear.) We all know that much
canvassing takes place before an election as to this or that
person's political opinions. The feelings and intentions of
voters would be collected at public-houses, clubs, and other
associations. It is said that if a shopkeeper does not vote as
his customers wish him, he is deprived of their custom, and
that if a farmer votes against the desire of his landlord, he is
ejected from his farm; but introduce the ballot, and the only
difference would be that instead of these things taking place
in consequence of what is known, they will take place on
suspicion.—(Hear.) Again, it is said that the ballot will
prevent bribery. The example given by my Right. Hon.
Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequr the other night of 'the
working of the ballot in New York is, to nay mind, a conclu-
sive answer to that assertion.—(Cheerseand " No.") The
Hon. Member who says " No " could not have been in the
House when the Hon. Mover, in his able and temperate
speech, read a letter from an American gentleman, which
began by admitting that the observations of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer were substantially correct.—(Hear.)
Mr. BERKELEY—The !statement of facts, not the infe-
rences drawn from them.--(Order.)
Mr. WALPOLE—The Hon. Member's American corre-
spondent admits the Chancellor of the Eenxricnicechflaelenorqe:unaoecnfred'ishlesTltenahatxeyene_-
clmhpeendq state-
ment
asideeorf as
ee tl
inferenceol
abs e
tchoartr correct,
Nwvbut
bb
yy deniestthh ee CAhhmi
as
the House of Commons to draw its own inference from
statement of facts admitted to be correct.—(Cheers)
The
New York case appears to me a complete answer to the as-
sumption that the ballot would prevent bribery Then, if
it will not prevent bribe_rmyh,4vtaasienkaendth
under
edewhho msa.sintetaisin that
caninvi eblraibbleerys cbreecyp
ucnanishebde
pose an election to run very close, ainuotdBboobdwy-
one or two votes, if corruption b practised ever so ex-
tensively on this occasion, h e pracnbe Ate to detect
and punish it if votes be how
ill Itesauns ° the ballot?
Look at the elections recently ins Fiance under the ballet,d
bleorbttlee teecre T
determined
where so many votes were e meeated—
more than could
actually be given—that 'it was wittily
remarked by an able
first practical Dias-
writer in this country that that was the-Supposing
tration of two negatives making in affirmative.obtainproofof
the ballot were introduced, how Could youustice to the party
frauds committed, and how cauid you
dolid the election run
who ought to be the reo entative, Blum
.res been given fraudulently against
close? and should votes have tee t there is another reason,
(Hear.) But 1 own a ' to t
h makes me more anxious resie
in a moral aspect, which the introduction of the ballot. Now, I broadly contend that
er a erson is emwered to exercise
in this country,
whel2neevoughtp to exercise ipo t under the influ-
any trust evhatever,
üblicopinion.—(Cheers.) There is no
ence and control
ooftj'should be more irresponsible than the
representatiel
reason why thetov
that high tribunal.—(Cheers.) Nay, more,
_ve
bas as much right to ask what are the
the represoe
ittilie constituents he represents as the constituents
opinions
right to ask in what way the representative exer-
cises thethin these walls in pursuance of the choice
°is° his duty eel
those constituents have made.—(Hear, hear.) I think, too,
that the observations which fell from the lion. Member for
I3ridp)rt, quoting the speech of the Right Hon. Baronet the
Member for Ripon, are not entirely to be forgotten; and,
though those observations are somewhat stronger than any
I am inclined to use—though I should not be tempted to state
that everybody must be a scoundrel and hypocrite when Le
exercises the franchise by the ballot, yet I say that this
practice may have, in a moral aspect, a material influence on
the character of the people—(Hear, hear)—for the opportu-
nity of concealment will give the opportunity for fraud, and
for the indulgence of malicious and revengeful feelings,
which could not be attended with advantage to
the country.—(Hear, hear.) lion. Gentlemen who were
in this House at a former period, when great debates took
place on this subject, may recollect the pointed quotation
made by the late Sir R. Beel, when he adverted to the effect