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

and Learned Gentleman concluded by stating 11;5 firm convic-
tion that the Ballot was necessary.—( Cheers. )
Lord HO WICK was willing to admit there were great
evils in the present system, and that it was desirable, if pos-
sible, to put a stop to them. He was as anxious on that head
as the lion. Member for London ; but the question before the
House—the real question for consideration—was, were the
means proposed by the lion. Member calculated to obtain the
object he wished for? He (Lord Howick) was of opinion
that the motion if agreed to, would be attended with other
consequences than those contemplated by the Hon. Member.
lie did not deny that the vote by Ballot would be attended
with some advantages, but he wished the House well to con-
sider the probable advantages and disadvantages likely to
arise from the system, and make up their minds accordingly.
If the subject under consideration were well and maturely
weighed in all its bearings, he was of opinion that it would be
round that the disadvantages preponderated.—( Hear, hear.)
Neither was lie convinced of the necessity for trying the ex-
periment. In the first place, one of the greatest disadvantages
which might be expected, and it was one to which the lion.
Member for London had not alluded, but which had been men-
tioned in the House on former occasions,was the enormous power
vote by Ballot would place in the hands of returning officers.
If, as the law at present stood, a candidate was dissatisfied
with the return made by that cog-leer—if it was considered that
bad votes had been placed upon the poll—a Committee might
be obtained, who had power to strike them off and decide
which party was entitled to be placed in the House. Now,
no such remedy could be applied by the Ballot. It would be
impossible to know if votes were good or bad, and it often hap-
pened that an election was decided by half a dozen, or in
many instances, by tw •or three votes. In such cases no re-
dress could be aforded—no redress was proposed by the mo-
tion of the Hon. Member. Cases would arise in which not
the smallest doubt could possibly exist as to there being ficti-
tious votes ; but under the system proposed by his Hon.
Friend the parties aggrieved could not go before a Commit-
tee and produce legal proof.—( Hear, hear.) What then
would be the result? Whatever fictitious votes were received
by the returning officer—however he might abuse his duty—
there would be no possibility of producing legal proof to sa•
tisfy a Committee in declaring any election null and void.
lustice between parties could not he attained under such a
system. It had been asked if the evils of the present system
were imaginary—he did not say they were ; he admitted
I that gross acts of partiality were carried on ; -but if such an
enormous power as would be derived from the Ballot was
placed in the hands of returning officers, would it not, to say
the least, put an enormous temptation in their way? The
Hon. Member anticipated many advantages by adopting the
Ballot. In the first place, he said it would throw a great dif-
ficulty in the way of bribery, if not prevent it altogether.—
( Hear.) He (Lord Howick) thought different. Bribery would
generally take place when the strength of rival parties was
nearly exhausted, and then under circumstances the most pri-
vate it was possible for human ingenuity to devise; and, there-
fore, as regarded the question of bribery, he differed entirely
with the Hon. Member in supposing that vote by Ballot would
stop it. He considered the Hon. Member had also much over-
rated other advantages which might be expected from the sys-
tem. The electors in a free country were entitled, and had a
right to give their votes openly, to openly assert, and canvass-
ing openly to advance their political opinions, and by every
means in their power openly to espouse the cause of that can-
didate whose political opinions they preferred. The Hon. Mem-
ber did not appear to see that it was of no use in protecting the
vote alone. Political opinions must also be kept secret. He
doubted whether the landlords possessed that power over
their tenants which had been represented ; he doubted whether
at the present day a landlord would say to his tenant, you shall
not advocate such a cause—you shall not canvass for such a
party ; but all the Hon. Member asked for was protection for
the vote—he asked for no protection against canvassing or ad-
vocating a particular cause. He (Lord Howick) believed
measures of protection might be formed to secure independ-
ence of voting without the House adopting the motion of the
Hon. Member. —( Hear.) Although, as he before said, he
doubted whether landlords possessed that great power over the
votes of their tenants which had been represented, yet ho was
willing to admit that they possessed great power; he knew
they had the power to dismiss tenants at the expiratien of the
leases if they voted contrary to their wishes. He knew that it
was in the power of customers to choose their tradesmen's
shops. He knew the power that existed; but if that power
was arraigned at the bar of public opinion—if such a case was
brought forward and exposed—justice would be obtained.
• Public opinion was almost omnipotent—( Hear, hear)—and
no man, whatever his influence, dare to gainsay such a
number of voters as would determine an election. If pub-
lic opinion was declared openly against the practice of inti-
, midation, the independent elector would be set free, and
find protection and security against the abuses of any such
power. If it did not do away with intimidation altogether,
it would certainly much diminish it. It was said that open
voting had always existed, and that intimidation had always
existed ; but his Hon. Friend forgot that a new era com-
menced on the passing of the Reform 13i11.—( Hear, hear.)
In the general election of 1836 no landlord was ashamed
openly to avow that his tenants voted with him; but mark
the change, would any make such an avowal at the present
day ?—( Hear.) He would ask the House whether any can-
didate at the present day dare to see reported in the columns
of a newspaper that he was backed by the tenantry of any
landlord ? It was the every-day practice for charges and
counter-charges of undue influence to be made ; and
were not those charges always denied by both parties?—
( Hear, hear.) Did not both parties on the hustings pub-
licly deny that no undue influence was used. Ile would appeal
to the columns of all the newspapers, if such was not
the fact. When he stated this he did not deny that some
influence was used ; but when the time had come that both
parties considered it necessary to deny it, when it could no
longer be done in a corner, when every man on the hustings
denied it, and trusted to the fair sense of the constituency,
when such a change in public opinion had taken place, it
was not too much to expect redress for the grievance under
the present system. A great change had taken place since
the passing of the Reform Bill ; he was, therefore, not pre-
pared to assent to the motion of the Hon. Member for London.
—( Hear, hear.) He entertained several grounds of objection
to the motion. That was the third or fourth year the subject
had been regularly debated, and he admitted the propriety of
it, as the subject occupied so large a place in public opinion.
—( Hear, hear.) He had carefully considered what had been
said on both sides. The Hon. Member for London said,
why not adopt a direct course, and at once give vote by Ballot ?
Now he did not think that system would prove infallible. His
, ( Lord Howick's) opinion was, that secret voting was not ne-
cessary to create independent feeling. There must be a public
vivifying spirit to keep alive the body politic.—( Hear.) He
would ask were there no benefits derived from the present
system? If an individual was exposed to loss, his mind and
character were improved ; and if it was made known to the
world, he would obtain sympathy equal to his loss. He
thought bad feelings and habits would be engendered if men
could not give their votes, and declare their political opinions,
openly, it would be placing an obstacle on the exercise of
public opinion. If it was desirable to obtain a fair esti-
mate of public opinion, men must have an open oppor-
tunity of discussing the political sentiments of those
who offered themselves as candidates.--( Hear.) He wished to
see all men state their political opinions openly and freely ;
if that privilege were once denied, it would be impossible ever
to obtain a sound public opinion. He never would assent to
any measure which would prevent a manful and open expres.
sion of public feeling. The Hon. Member said vote by
Ballot would soften the violence of party contests—that a vote
might be slipped into the box, and no man need avow his politi-
cal opinion. He agreed with him that such would be the
case, but he did not think it desirable that such a state of
things should exist. Ile thought it desirable that it should be
otherwise; and he could not think vote by Ballot would allay
party contests. If, however, the Hon. Member proved that
position, and that object was accomplished, he thought it of
little consequence, for if a man could not openly avow his sen-
timents, the boasted liberty of the people was gone. Every
one who had read the history of the French revolution would
shrink with horror from the influence of a furious democracy,
and that was the class to which the motion of the Hon. Mem-
ber would give a legal sanction. This was the feeling of
mmy Reformers on the subject. The Hon. Member was fond
of alluding to America in support of his opinion relating to the
Ballot. He (Lord Howick) would refer him to the works of
Dr. Tocqueville, and he would see that authority stated that
no real freedom ever could exist in secret voting.—( Hear. )
The Noble Lord proceeded to state, that he for one would
not vote for the motion of the Hon. Member for the reasons
he had already given. He was, however, convinced that the
evil of intimidation, so justly complained of, could not for
any great length of time be allowed to continue in the face of
the good sense and growing intelligence of the people of Eng-
land.—(llcar. ) lie agreed with his Noble Friend, Lord
Melbourne, who, in the other Hobse of Parliament, had
stated that the abuse of influence in Parliamentary proceed-
ings was one of the crying evils of the period in which we
lived ; but he trusted that it would shortly be extinguished by
the general good sense of the people.—( Hear.) If his (Lord
llowick's) hopes should unhappily be deceived—if such a cir-
cumstance did unfortunately happen—then he might at length
be driven to adopt the measure of the Hon. Member for the
city of London.—( Hear.) He said so as a caution to the
enemies of the vote by Ballot, who would do well not to reflect
that if the evil of intimidation continued, to the Ballet the
country must and shall inevitably come.—( Hear, hear.) A
power too strong to be overcome would arise, and produce, as
a necessary consequence, what he now might consider an un-
fortunate change in the law of Parliament. He confidently
believed, notwithstanding, that real Reformers would even-
' tually effect the object which they so anxiously looked for,
without adopting the dangerous experiment recommended by
the lion. Member for the city of London.—( Hear.)
Mr. C. I3ULLER rose amidst considerable cries of "di-
vide." The lion. Gentleman began by thanking the Mem-
bers on the opposition benches for so large an attendance, and
for their magnanimous silence on the question under discus-
sion.—( Hear.) The only one indeed on the opposite side of
the House who had thought it worth his while to notice the
subject was the Hon. Member for Evesham ( Mr. Borthwick)
who had assumed a lofty and elevated tone of opposition, and
had borne good evidence of the working of the bribery system.
He told the House that he had seen the tenant offend his
landlord, and the tradesman his customer, by the vote which he
gave, and yet he would not support a legitimate mode of get-
ting rid of the cause of offence, namely, a knowledge of which
way the vote went. In former timesevery gentleman or lady who
had courage to walk over Hounslow-heath were lauded for their
courage. The introduction of a good police, however, had put an
end to that, and he ( Mr. C. Buller) considered that the Govern-
ment were entitled to the thanks of OW coautrx fat' Mting
down the highWaYrllail i Nat so it w 45 with Open voting,
compared with the B.allot.—(Cheers.) He did not
the oe,
form Bill that ho looked for support in the present question
although he was far from satisfied with the arguments of dig