The Sun.
London, England, 1837-03-08 00:00:00

the non-electors of one fragment of security which they now
enjoy, the ballot will give them the maximum of security which
your present electoral system admits of. Sir, it is not a little
singular that the same reasoners who affirm that publicity of
suffrage is necessary for the protection of the unrepresented
many, also contend that it is necessary for the purpose of at-
taching factitious dominion to the persons of the over-repro-
;Tilted few. At one time you hear the Ballot assailed because
it will extinguish the influence of wealth ; at another time, be-
cause it will extinguish the influence of disfranchised poverty.
Now, Sir, how in the name of common consistency arc these
two reasons to be both maintained together? Admit the one,
and you at once disallow the other. Do you insist that
the elector shall be responsible to the people at large? Then.
at least you are bound to protect him against the tyranny of
the great man in his neighbourhood. Is it your opinion, on
the other hand, that the vote of the tenant ought to be made
over for the purpose of swelling the consequence of his rich
landlord? Then, refrain from teaching him that he is res-
ponsible to the people. The two arguments literally destroy
one another.—( Hear, hear.) But, alas ! Sir, this responsi-
bility of the votenoto the people is never intended for anything
raal and serious ; it is nothing better than a solemn fiction,
dressed up to colour and disguise an unequal conflict between
contending modes of intimidation—an alternation from one
sort of tyranny to another.—( Hear.) Open voting does carry
with it a certain measure of coercion occasionally exercised by
clubs or combinations of the unrepresented many over the
rotes of particular electors; and it is this which gentlemen are
pleased to defend and extol, because it serves as a pre-
tence for upholding the greater and wider coercion on
the part of the wealthy few.—( Hear.) You are desired
by all means to admit occasional intimidation from the poor,
because the same door serves to introduce the systema-
tic, the permanent, the all pervading intimidation of the
rich. Let me beseech you, Sir, to look for one moment at
the condition of the voter, and see what a business voting is
thus reduced to. Coercion over the voter by the poor non-
voters—coercion over him by the rich—coercion by every
one who has the power to coerce him—all is right, all is jus-
tified, on the principles which aro resorted to in opposing the
Ballot. Coercion and counter-coercion are assumed to be
the essential and tutelary sorces which keep the ekctors in
their proper orbit. And all this while the professed purpose
of the law is that electors shall deliver their suffrage freely
and indifferently I—while the law punishes bath the giver
and the receiver of a bribe, under pretence that the freedom
of election is a sacred and a solemn thing I—(Hear, hear.)
Why, Sir, on the reasonings of those who oppose the Ballot,
everything like freedom or indifference of election is de-
nounced and set aside—it is not even tolerated as a contin-
gent good—it is banished as a positive mischief. One por-
tion of the electors are to be deprived of their freedom be-
cause it is necessary to maintain the coercive force of the
unrepresented many. Another portion of them are to sur-
render their independent choice because the influence of
property is to be preserved at all price, and because every rich
man is entitled to confine within the sphere of his own attrac-
tion a troop of electoral satellites. And thus between them
both, the real holder of the franchise is robbed of every thing
like righteous liberty of conscience—he is degraded into the
mere passive instrument of " pressure from without." Nor is
this all ; for it happens often that the pressure from two op-
posing quarters is so violent that the elector knows not which
he ought to obey, and, indeed, cannot steer clear of loss and
inconvenience let him obey whichsoever he will. Sir, it seems
to me that on this theory the elective franchise is little less
than a curse to those who possess it ; they are forbidden to
follow their own conscientious opinions, and they are left to
enjoy neither the satisfaction of an independent judgment nor
the undisturbed submission of a slave. Sir, I have maintained
before, and I now maintain again, that the Ballot will not de-
prive a rich man of one grain of influence which he has a fair
title to enjoy. The Ballot will not lessen in the remotest de-
gree the influence which he exercises, in sc far as it consists
with the free agency and spontaneous obedience of those who
look up to him ; and I cannot for an instant admit that be-
yond this limit he is entitled to one particle of influence.—
(Hear.) I cannot for an instant admit that we are called upon
to provide him with the means of constraint and compulsion,
or even to tolerate him in the employment of them, if by the
carelessness of the law he has been allowed to get them into
his hands. I confess, Sir, I think it a valuable improvement
that the influence of property at elections should be made to
depend less upon its positive amount, and more upon the man-
ner in which it is expended. And I know no method so
likely to induce men of property to turn their leisure to ge-
nerous and dignified purposes. I know no method so effectual
to make them thirst for the esteem and respect of those around
them, as by rendering that esteem the indispensable condition
of their political influence. I have now, Sir, reviewed the
principal objections usually urged against the Ballot, and when
I consider how feeble and futile most of these objections are, I
fool increased confidence in the justice of my cause—l feel
increased assurance that the measure which I advocate must
continue to grow in the favour and approbation of the people.
In enforcing my proposition, I have laid no stress on mere
party arguments, for the cause does not need them. It is
indeed my conviction that the ballot will work favourably to
liberal politics, because I believe that the real opinion of the
people is on that side—l believe that truth and justice is on
that side—( clear)—and sure I am, that whenever the opinion
of the people is left to form and to express itself without re-
straint, truth and justice must in the long-run prevail.—
(Hear, hear.) But whether the opinion of the people is for
me or against me, I demand at least that it shall be fairly and
freely taken—rejoicing when it proves to be in'my favour_
prepare to submit and to wait, if it be otherwise. And I feel
that in advocating the Ballot, I am upholding nothing less
than the sacred right of free judgment and free utterance in
political matters—l am treading in the steps of those illustrious
men who have rescued the individual conscience f. om its tram-
mels, and vindicated its liberty and inviolability in matters of
religion—l am striving to baffle the guilty efforts of that spirit
of persecution which still harasses the political world, and still
defiles the sincerity and solemnity of the elective franchise.
If, Sir, you can break the sword of the persecutor, and assure
freedom of election, without the aid of the Ballot, proceed to
the task without delay, for never was there a case uf more
pressing necessity. But when it is notorious that this cannot
be done, and when the alternative of the Ballot is ready within
your reach, I beseech you to consider whether you can, with a
safe conscience, license and perpetuate the countless mischiefs
of an unprotected suffrage. The Hon. Gentleman concluded
his speech, which was received throughout with great cheering,
with moving for leave to bring in- a Bill accordingly.
Mr. HODG ES said, after the able, argumentative, and
convincing speech of his Hon. Friend—( Hear, hear)—per-
haps he should take the wisest course by merely saying that
he seconded the motion ; but there were one or two points in
the present situation of the nation which he could not but no-
tice, as forming an additional recommendation of the mea-
sure. It was very well known that the Reform Bill did not
answer the expectations formed of it by the people, and the
cause of that disappointment was the unsatisfactory state of
the constituent body.—( Hear, hear.) It was impossible to
shut their eves to the state of that House, and to the growing
desire arising out of it for Universal Suffrage.—( Hear.) It
could not be supposed that those who had not received the
Ira chive could be satisfied with the present state of the law,
which placed them in contact with the tremendous taxation
of this conntry. He alluded to the New Poor Law Bill. That
measure, combined with the education of the people which
was in progress, would lead the great body of the
people to think that they were not in the state
that they ought to be in the community, and to seek the
best means of improving their condition. When the immense
taxation brought on by the French war was pressing on
the community, Mr. Pitt saw the necessity of defending
the labouring classes from its depressing effects; and in 1794
brought in Acts to defend the poor ; but by the New Poor-law
the labouring classes were brought into constant contact with
our tremendous taxation. Was it to be supposed that, with
such means of information, they could not call for a change
which it might become dangerous to refuse ? Why had the
poor no confidence in the present state of the House?
,If,
when the Reform Bill was passed, a provision had been made
for the poor, they would then have trusted to that House, and
not in vain, for protection; but he was sorry that what then
took place had not gained the confidence of a large portion of
the people. In former times causes were decided by large
assemblies of the people; in our times causes were de-
cided by juries, an institution which the people would
revere as long as England was on the earth. He would
ask the House to give to the constituent body the same
veneration as was given to the jury-box ; and then the
representatives so elected would command the respect
and veneration of the people, instead of being the objects
of their distrust.—( Hear, hear, hear.) The course to be
taken was plain. If they wished to amend the evils of the
present mode of election, they must throw around the consti-
tuency the protection of the Ballot—( Hear)—then their deci-
sions would be received with the same respect as the verdicts
of juries.—( Hear, hear.) At an election a tradesman had
let loose on him a whole host of attorneys and agents; and as
he went up to vote against the dictates of his judgment and
conscience, he felt himself a self-degraded man; but put
the same man in a jury-box, there lie was invulnerable ; no
one attempted to influence his judgment or induce him to vio-
late his conscience, and he never felt himself, nor was thought
by others, degraded by the exercise of his right in the dis-
charge of that important duty.—( Hear.) By granting the
Ballot they would oppose an effectual barrier to the demand
for universal suffrage, and they might safely enlarge the con-
stituent body, though to extend the suffrage at present would
only add to their degradation, and increase the means of cor-
ruption.—(llear, hear.)
Mr. POULTER said, the Legislature of the country
having granted to a large body of people the elective fran-
chise, they were bound to secute to them the free exercise of
that great political right.—( Hear, hear.) No Member of the
House had a greater interest in the free exercise of that right;
none had so little to offer to influence voters, or depended more
on the honest feeling and real affection of electors.—( Hear,
hear.) Few Members would more certainly support the mo-
tion of the Hon. Gentleman, if he had exhausted every other
means of assuring protection to the exercise of the electOrs'
right. What he complained of the Hon. Member for London
was, that he endeavoured to make out a case in favour of the
Ballot, without duly considering all the consequences. What
the Hon. Gentleman said of letters written and sealed, did not
support his argument ; no one could call on the persons to
know the contents of such letters, and if the parties kept the
secret in their own bosoms no one could know anything about
it. The Hon. Gentleman appealed, as ou a former oc-
casion, to the Report of the Committee on threats and intimi-
dation ; but ho went much farther than the case would warrant.
He considered the Report of the Intimidation Committee as
a book of incontrovertible authority.—( No, no.) He had
drawn such inference. He admitted that the book contained a
valuable
caseslunablebody of evidence, and warranted strong suspicions in
;—(Hear)—but he must deny that the evidence in
it was conclusive and consistent. As to the argument regard-
ing the adoption of the Ballot by clubs, he thought that an
erroneous inference was drawn from it. That course was not