The Sun.
London, England, 1830-03-08 00:00:00

SPIRIT.OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The House of Ciimmons heard for the first time
(we believe) on Friday evening, a proposal to
substitute the election of Members of Parliament
by ballet for the practice of open voting, which has
Ling arid universally prevailed amongst Englishmen.
At first sight there appears to be something plausi-
ble in the expedient which allows every man to act
as he thinks fit, without being called to account fer
it. The Member for Clare is reported to have
said, that of the two inducements for voting—namely,
terror and corruption—neither could have so much
force with electors whose votes were secretly given.
This may be possible, but it is not certain ; and
uu-
doubredly it is not the whole of the case. The
above argument for the secret ballot applies only to
corrupt or intimidated voters, who might be pre-
sumed to feel so much repugnance in supporting the
Candidate to whom their votes were given as could
be overcome no otherwise but by menaces or bribes.
But is there no mischief done by depriving the
virtuous and popular candidate of the credit fairly
resulting from an open manifestation of the class of
support which he receives ? or by robbing the up-
right electors of that separation from the base,
which their birthright, and which nothing but pub-
licity can secure to them ? Under a system of ballot
there can be no confidence, or co-operation, or mutual
encouragement, between candidate and elector, in the
pursuit of great public objects. At present, in Eng-
land men can distinguish theirfriends from their oppo-
nents. Every Man avows his preference, and maintains
it in the face of day. Fawning speeches are not had
recourse to by voters, as a mask for underhand hosti-
lity. The generaleharacter of an English election,with
every allowance both for bribery and for bullying, is
one of boldness, frankness, and self assertion in the
constituent body. Nor does it seem to us that the en-
abling a sordid fellow to skulk like a thief in the exercise
of a political franchise, would indemnify the country
for what it lost by the degradation of the manly
and high spirited electors to an apparent level with
the worthless. Hypocrisy there may exist at pre-
sent., no doubt, and treachery is not without example
in the conduct of voters, as well as candidates. But
by the ballot scheme both would be fiicilitated, and
in a manner authorized, and the habitual and pre-
dominant spirit throughout our election politics would
be a distrust of amicable professions ; or, in other
words, a want of confidence between man and man,
than which we do not know how any more un-
fortunate revolution could befall the public character
of England. It is said, that in our clubs the system
of ballot universally prevails ; but the reason is ob-
vious—because there the objections to individuals
being on personal grounds, would always be pro-
ductive of soreness and offence if made openly ; and
on the other hand, if not permitted to be secret,
might deprive those members already composing the
society of the free exercise of their will and pleasure,
in cases on which their own social comfort might
depend. On the whole, it is no recommendation to
us that the ballot exists in France and in America,
because we are by no means sure that the relation
between constituent and representative in either
country stands on a footing more generally favour-
able than here. As for bribery, there is no question
that without much ingenuity it might be practised
wholesale, under the ballot scheme, in such a way
as to act upon the sympathies of a mass of voters, by
holding out the prospect of a collective sum to be
distributed among them in the event of a certain
candidate's return. The influence of property, though
sometimes abused, we believe as a whole works not
iijuriously. It does riot, therefore, strike us that all
tvould be clear again, by leaving the lower orders of
electors without standards round which to rally.—
Times.

Connected with the subject of Sir J. Newport's
important motion, three curious petitions were pre-
sented against the same individual, the Rev. J.
O'Roerke, vicar of the five parishes in the union of
Foxfors: (county of Mayo), by different bodies of
his numerous and ill-tended flock, complaining of
different grievances. No less than 4,888 of them
in one parish of this quintuple charge, represented
that, after agreeing to receive 3141. 13s. 4d. in lieu
of his tithes, under the regulations of the Tithe
Composition Act, the Reverend Gentleman drew
back, and refused to confirm the agreement, his
diocesan having in the first instance declined to
ratify the contract. The second petition complsined
that since the induction of the said vicar, in 1817,
the petitioners have not enjoyed the residence of a
beneficed clergyman, though from two out of his
union of his five parishes he exacts the enormous
income of .5001. a year; and the third, which
seems to come fcom members of all the parishes,
contains a whole budget of grievances against the
said Reverend Gentleman, the chief of which is, that
during the last three years, though he has neither
administered the rites of religion, nor attended to
the business of education, he has instituted 2,521
suits fur his tithes. This petition represents to Par-
liament some striking facts, which, if they can be
proved, deserve the severest reprehension. It states
that Mr. O'Roorke has never resided in one of his
five parishes of the union of Foxford, containing, by
the last census, 19,234 mike—that he usually lives
in another diocess, where, instead of performing his
clerical duties, he is engaged in the secular occupa-
tion of a tithe-farmer and a grazier,—that in the
season of distress, in 1822, he never visited the
poor, and refused to subscribe for their relief,—that
his demands for tithes are fourfold those of his pre-
decessors, though he does no duty,—that he has
proceeded for tithe on hay and wool, never before
demanded in those parishes,—that he summons his
parishioners in arrear for his tithes to an Episcopal
Court, 35 miles distant from their residence, where
they are obliged sometimes to appear without ob-
taining a hearing,—and that he has hitherto refused
all composition, theugh often tendered, These may
be great hardships, but it is quite evident that Par-
liament can grant no relief but by a general measure,
which would prevent the recurrence of similir evils.
Mr. O'Roorke may drive the best bargain he can,
under the provisions of the Tithe Composition Act,
or he may resist all accommodation with his
parishioners ;--he may reside in Bath instead of
Moylough, in Galway, leaving his parishioners to
die and be buried without his assistance, if his dio-
cesan permits his absence; and ho may institute as
many suits for tithes as he finds resistance to his
elaims, without in any of these eases fearing the
jurisdiction of the House of Commons. The evil is
m the system, and the system must be rectified, if
the Protestant Church of Ireland is to be restored
to that state of purity and efficiency which, consti-
tuting its only title to respect, afford the only
guarantee for its permanence.—Times.
The question agitated on Friday last, whether
ekeiees should vote by ballot, is one of the greatest
importance, if it be intended that Parliamentary
Reform should be effectual. It strikes us as singular
how a doubt should ever have arisen as to the su-
periority of voting by ballot over every other mode.
If the object be the exercise of a free and inde-
pendent suffrage, whatever tends to secure the
elector against the chance of pecuniary injury, in
consequence of his vote, and to diminish the strength
of the temptation on the part of the candidate to
have recourse to corruption, must, of course, be
highly desirable. We are utterly at a loss to know
what is meant by the influence of property in elee-
Owls, except bribery. This was very happily shewn
by Mr. Wyndham, in his opposition, in 1809, to
Mr. Curwen's Bill for the punishment of direct
bribery. Mr. Windham contended that the inflin,
ence of property, in buying and selling seats, was as
legitimate as any other, and that the distinction at-
tempted to be set up by Mr. Curwen and others
was one without a difference. " How (said he)
if the, sale of a seat, or any other commutation of
services connected with such an object, be gross cor-
ruption, can we tolerate the influence which property
gives in biassing the minds of those who are to give
their votes ? How a landlord, for instance, should have
any more influence over his own tenants than over
those of another man ? How a large manufacturer
should be able to bring to the poll more of his own
workmen than of these employed in the service of

his neighbour ? How an opulent man of oany de-
scription, spending his fortune in a borough town,
should be able to talk of his influence over the smal-
ler tradesmen; or be at liberty to hint to his baker,
or his butcher, that laying out every week such a
sum with them, as he does, he expects that they
should oblige him by giving a vote to Mr. Such-a-
one at the next election ? If all this is not corrupt
on the principles on which we are now inquiring, I
know not what is. What has money spent with
tradesmen, or work given to manufacturers, or farms
let to tenants to do with the independent exercise
of their right, and the conscientious discharge of
their duty, in the election of a Member to serve
them in Parliament ? A fine idea, truly, that their
decision in the choice of a Representative is to be
influenced by the consideration of what is best
for their separate and private interest ! or that per-
sons, the advocates of purity, arid who will hear of
nothing but strict principle, should attempt to !Its-
tinguish between the influence which engages a
man's vote by the offer of a sum of money, and that
which forbids the refusal of it, under the penalty of
loss of custom, or loss of work, or of the possession
of that on which his wife arid family must depend for
their bread ? I shall be curious to hear in what man•
ner, not the advoe.::s of this Bill, but the advocates
for the prig :ip'es on which this Bill is enforced, will
defend themselves against these questions ; arid be
able to show, that while it is gross corruption, gross
moral depravity in any one who possesses such in•
fluence, to connect his own interest with the use of
it, even though he should not use it improperly, it
is perfectly innocent to create that influence by the
means just described." What Mr. Wyndham here
says is unanswerable. The influence of property is
therefore bribery. And why should a man, because
he has property sufficient to influence, that is, to
bribe a number of voters, be allowed to contribute
more to the return of a representative of the people
than another ? A man of limited means has a deeper
interest in the welfare of his country than a rich
man, because the latter can leave his home whenever
he pleases, and his wealth will everywhere procure
him a comfortable existence. But the man of mode-
rate means is bound by a hundred ties to his coun-
try, which he cannot sever. His sphere of utility
is confined to his neighbourhood; lie cannot abandon
his farm or his shop, and enjoy himself like a rich
man in Paris, Rome, or Naples. Why should the
opinions of a hundred men, possessed of from five
hundred pounds to five thousand pounds each, with
every motive for patriotism, be of less amount than
the opinion of one man possessed of one or two
hundred thousand pounds, whose patriotism must he
much more feeble (for the more easily a man can dis-
pense with his country, the less ardent will his pa-
triotism be). But if you allow a great landholder or
rich man to purchase, by means of underletting land,
or by other well known means, the suffrages of a
number of persons, you disfranchise in the ratio of
such preponderance, other persons better entitled to
a vote than himself. Ludlow, in his Memoirs, men-
tions a case in which one man disfranchised in this
manner the independent inhabitants of a borough.
To this end," he says (vol. I, p. 169)," I en-
deavoured that my uncle, Mr. Edmund Ludlow,
might be chosen for the borough of Hindon, where
though he was elected and returned by the principal
burgesses and bailiff, yet the rabble of the town,
many of whom lived upoa the alms of one Mr.
George How, pretending that they had chosen the
latter, the Sheriff returned them both. By this
means. Mr. How got first into the House; but they
being informed of the matter of fact, commanded
him to withdraw till the cause should be de-
cided by the Committee of Privileges." When
men talk of the legitimate influence of property in
elections, they mean that the wealthy few should
tyrannise over the less wealthy many. Till it can be
shewn, that the welfare of a man of limited means,
and his interest in the welfare of those belonging to
him, are of less importance to him than the welfare
of a rich man is to such rich man, we contend that
every plan for giving preponderance in elections to
the rich man is tyranny, however it may be disguised.
What is wanted in a Parliamentary Reform is, that
the interests of the nation, and not the interests of any
particular portion of the nation, should be seemed. A
nation cannot bribe itself. When we hear of bribery,
and undue influence, we may be sure that those who
return the Representatives are not identified in in-

terests with the nation. But even supposing the
franchise to be communicated to the bulk of the
population, it would still be necessary that the
electors should be protected by the ballot, because
in this country property is so very unequally distri-
buted, that, without such a protection, a man pos-
sessed oflarge property,must,by his influence over the
numerous proletaires, every where to be found, defeat
the suffrages ofiiridependent voters. Besides whether
he be able or not, or whether a combination of rich
men be able or not, still where is the justice of ex-
posing poor men to the temptation of voting against
their conscience, or subjecting themselves to punish-
ment, by being expelled from their farms, or losing
the employment on which the existence of their fa-
milies depends ? When a Member of Parliament
talks of hypocrisy being promoted by the ballot, it
is unnecessary to reason with him. Why in electing
the office-bearers of Companies, in admitting members
to Clubs, is it always deemed necessary, in order to
secure an independent vote, that the ballot be re-
sorted to ? If men possessed of property, and of
cultivated minds, are afraid to expose themselves to
the consequence of individual resentments, and
choose to take shelter in the ballot, why should it
be hypocrisy in more humble individuals to pro-
tect themselves in the same way ? We contend
that the only circumstances which ought to influence
voters are the characters and talents of candidates;
that all other influence is illegitimate; and that
whatever tends to add to the protection of the voter,
against suffering in his person or property in con-
sequence of his vote, is desirable. But when gen-
tlemen talk of the legitimate influence of property,
and at the same time of their wish for economy
and retrenchment, they are in contradiction with
themselves. This is admirably shown by Mr. Wynd-
ham, in the speech from which we have just quoted.
A. gentleman at the eve of a General Election, or
on some vacancy in a Borough or County, is ad-
dressed by sonic one who is, or who, he hopes, will
be his constituents—some full-grown; manufacturer
or opulent brewer, or eminent attorney—who says,
You know my son Tom, who is in the Navy ; he
has been for some time a Lieutenant; I should be
very glad if you would get him made Master and
Commander.. The Candidate or Member bel,ys
assent (Mr. Such-a-one is not a man to be diso-
bliged) ; he speaks to his friend, the Minister; the
Minister speaks to the First Lord of the Admiralty,
and without further inquiry the thing is done ; no-
body being able to divine of those who are not in the
secret, and onjy know our son Tom professionally, for
which of his good qualities or meritorious actions
he has been made, so much out of his turn, and
over the heads of so many old and deserving dicers,
Master and Commander. Here, then, is a complete
job, passing through several successive stages, and
disgraceful enough in its progress to all the parties
concerned in it, including the Member, the Minister,
and the First Lord of the Admiralty, but certainly
not excluding the constituent, the corrupt consti-
tuent." We here see how all the profusion follows
as a necessary consequence from the first evil, the
influence of property in elections. To secure the
nation against corrupt expenditure and excessive
taxation, it is indispensably necessary that the elec-
tions should be free and uninfluenced. We are
unable at this time to enter further into this imports
ant subject.—lllorning Chronicle.
Mr. Huskisson, in the last debates on the East
Itetford question, is stated to have said that, " in
his opinion, the Members of the House should not
represent the population but the property of the.
country," This, if correctly reported (which we
have no reason to doubt) is one of the most extra-
ordinary avowals which was ever made within the
walls of the Commons' House of Parliament, We
had thought that the very term " House of Corns
rr►on9" meant that third estate of the realm corn-
' posed of the Representatives of the people; and so

•,tie shall continue to think, till we have some better
reason than this gratis dietwn of Mr. Huskisson
for changing our opinion. But, though Mr. Huskis.
son's be a new avowal in theory, we have not to
learn that in practice it has been long adopted to a
dangerous, not to say alarming extent ; and the me-
lancholy state of distress in which so great a mass of
the population is placed, affords but too convincing
a proof that what Mr. Huskisson asserts ought
to he the case, unfortunately, is so. That property
ought to be represented in Parliament no man can
doubt; but then it can only be fitly and constitu-
tionally rep sented through the persons of its pos-
sessors; and to say that property and not persons
should be represented, is little short of avowing that
legislation, if not government, exists for the benefit
of the rich alone—for the strong to the exclusion of
the weak. Such places as Gatton, Old Sarum, and
a few others, are the. only avowed and acknowledged
instances of the truth of Mr. Huskisson's doctrine,
both in theory and practice. Here a terminus at the
one and an old barn at the other constitute the
symbols (for pi.operty they can hardly be called)
which the Members for these places represent ;
unless, indeed, the wealthy, or needy owner of
this spurious description of property, as the case
may be, should be held to be the part of the popu-
lation there represented. Blackstone, in his definition
of " The Commons," would seem at first to bear
out, in some measure, Mr. Huskisson's idea, in
stating them " to consist of all such men of pro-
perty in the kingdom as have not seats in the House
of Lords ;" but one of his editors corrects him in a
note, wherein he states that the " word ' Coln-
moos,' in its present ordinary signification, com-
prises all the people who are under the rank of Peers,
without any regard to property." Mr. Huskisson
himself, we apprehend, represents the whole popu-
lation as well as property, of Liverpool, though
really elected by the freemen only; and the main,
and, indeed, only reason of any constitutional weight
against the claim of the people to universal suffrage,
is that it would give to mere population too great a
weight over the influence which property is enti-
tled to have in the Legislature. But that is quite
a different matter from excluding the former altoge-
ther; and, looking with lively jealousy to the con-
stitutional liberties of the people, we could not bring
ourselves to pass an alleged remark on this head,
coming, too, from so high an authority.—Morning
Herald.

We have reason to believe that a party has at
length been formed, with Lord Althorp at its head,
which will speedily compel Ministers either to re-
trench to a great extent or to dissolve the present
Parliament. The union, we understand, already
consists of upwards of an hundred members—most
of them county members, and, as a matter of
course, considerable landowners. On retrenchment
and a reduction of taxes, to the amount of several
millions, they are unanimous, and their numbers are
increasing daily. It is expected that before Mr.
Davenport's motion comes on, the ranks of this
intrepid party will be swelled to nearly two hundred.
We wish them success from the bottom of our
hearts. Tories, Radicals, Liberals, and Whigs, must
all agree that, unless some change is effectc-A, and
some remedy administered, the country, from actual
suffering, will be in a state of fearful convulsion
before next winter. If the Duke of Wellington
should resolve upon a dissolution he may gain time,
but he will not gain supporters. Come what may
it is plain that his Administration is tottering. If
he surrender not now he must surrender soon. By
resisting reduction, arid he is pledged to resist it,
he will find himself in a minority, and then there is
an end of him and his mad career. A dissolution
would weaken him, for new men would be more
inveterately opposed to him than the present. In
either case his peril is great and his shipwreck not
far distant.—Morning Journal.
We hazarded a few observations on Saturday on
the proposed measure of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer for throwing open the trade in beer; and
we again revert to the subject in the hope that the
remarks which we have to make, if calculated to
serve the interest of the Licensed Victuallers, may
not be wholly lost upon the meeting of the trade
which takes place this day. And, in the first place,
we trust that the meeting will be characterized by
union and cordiality among the different branches of
the trade. The attack, though apparently upon a
part of the trade only—the dealers in beer—is in
reality an attack upon the whole ; for no .sooner
will the measure now proposed have been passed
into a law, than those whose principal business
is the retail of spirits, will be subjected to
similar ruin. There is, therefore, every reason,
in point of interest, why the whole trade should
unite cordially in opposing the present mea-
sure ; and there is yet another reason—that in their
union is their strength.—Secondly, we trust that a
strong, but temperate, position against the proposed
measure—pointing out the ruin which will be
brought upon the trade should it pass into a law—
will be unanimously agreed to, and universally
signed.—Thirdly, the meeting ought not to separate
without appointing a Committee to watch over its
interests, arid selecting some forty or fifty of the
most intelligent men in the trade to be examined as
witnesses before the Select Committee, and to give
evidence respecting the amount of private property
invested in public-houses in the faith that the pre-
sent law would continue to be the law of the land,
and the ruin which the contemplated alteration would
produce.—We throw out these observations as mere
suggestions for the use of the meeting ; but the in-
telligence of those present will, no doubt, give rise
to others better calculated to promote its objects.—
Morning Advertiser.