The Sun.
London, England, 1837-11-23 00:00:00

~.

strike
e out of their han is the weapons with which they
in SOlong and so successfully fought against honesty
nu dependence. N't Te said a few days ago that pro-
erth as
property, ought to have no influence at elec-
3, but this is not saying that a man who has pro-
t_ElY, and who employs that property for the benefit of
is poorer neighbours , and to the increase of the happi-
of the communit ,y, ought to have no influence. He
;lei Probably better informed than many who are under
and he has an ix iterest (to repeat our own words)
an not attempting ,c to impose upon them a person
is unworthy to I ,e their representative :" this is
lust we called " th e influence of personal character
,se Pported by wealth and station," and we are glad to
l° able to maintain. ourselves in this position by the
letter to the Earl of Durham On the Ballot.
big` The legitimate it +fluence of property at elections (says
Lordship) is a v ery different thing. And if he who
possesses property rec ommend himself to his neighbours by
fittreputation for public-mindedness and knowledge be-
ating his station,. be may depend upon it his advice will
to ea enough be :isked, his judgment abundant;y deferred
'nad, if the Ballot were in action, and to whatever
party in the State: such a man might belong, his opinions
Would powerfully ;influence the votes of his neighbours.
I recommend the secret mode of voting, not as weak-
n,
Ing, but as strengthening, and considerably strengthen-
g' this legitimaixt tinfluence—l say, considerably strength-
ning it.
" An adventurer comes down to a borough containing a
hundred voters. With this borough he is entirely
u" ne°finected. But ha ving, by some successful speculation,
or
perhaps by the assistance of some political association,
Possessed himself of a sum sufficient to undertake an enter-
tr,iB° of this sort, he app lies it to operating on the corrupti-
CRY of this small constituency, or the majority of it. We
ore seen, by manifold'. experience, that the application
th head money, and a judicious generosity during
election time, have riot, to say the least of it, been less
effectual in recent instances than before the passing of the
Reform
Bill, in inducing: the constituencies of either small
or. large places to sell t'neir votes, in the coarsest manner,
oet,ding strangers in opposition to claims of ancient con-
. nti°ll, of legitimate influence of property, as well as per-
oriel and political ties long established. I say that the
prior and natural inclination of such a 'constituency (at all
events
of that poorer portion of them, a large one, who can-
not be supposed to be governed by any strong political bias)
Would be to vote in accordance with the sentiments of the
resident gentry who have been the longest and best known
"‘uero ; were it not for the operation of a temporory bar-
!,nlo, the very terms of which depend upon its being seen whe-
rer the votes are given to the party which has bought them.
saY, no adventurer would be rash enough to speculate on
ti_
tl'e strength of his mere purse against the natural and legi-
n."tte influence of ncighb miring property', when he can no
longer be assured of the vote being duly exchanged for the
lin°4°Y. I say, where aid the pre-existing attachments,
oni habit, if from no better feeling, are in favour of neigh-
bouring property, the chance-corner with the purse would
not risk it under a system of secret voting, having no se-
curity for a due return ; or if he were to try the specula-
ion, he ,
would try it without, success.
" I recommend secret viAing, no less as a protection for
the legitimate influence of property than for lawful inde-
pendence of the elective cranchise."
What we contend against is what the enemies of
he Ballot have been accustomed to consider the legi-
timate influence of property, namely, the power of the
landlord
of 501. tenants-at-will, or of 101. household-
ers, to drive them to the poll and to compel them to
give their suffrages, not according to their own con-
Sciences,l but according to his command. This is
wcfiat Lord Nugent calls the " illegitimate influence"
of Property, and what, we venture to think, amounts
,
'e nothing less than a bribe. If it be worth, we will
`ay, 101. to a tenant not to be turned out of possession
°' a small farm or a house, and his landlord do not
turn him out on condition that he votes for a parti-
cular candidate, whom he would otherwise vote
against, what is it but a corrupt consideration
tO the voter to violate his conscience ? There
le one point upon which we do not recollect
that Lord Nugent touches, but it is one which
Ought not to be entirely passed over, when con-
sidering the advantages or disadvantages of the
Ballot
We allude to the apprehensions of the
Tories that it will increase the popular power. Even
if such were to be the effect, and we do not dispute
that it might be so to some extent in the outset of the
experiment, the evil (granting it to be one, for the
The of argument) would soon work its own cure.
,ite opponents of the Ballot contend, and it forms
ben„ them a strong ground of objection, that it would
00-rinweiling, and would leave matters between the
poer constituents and the large owners of property
oeu 'e"k as they are at present. If so, the popular power,
cording to their own showing, would remain nu-
a:tinged. If, on the contrary, it were augmented,
their emancipation, voted against the wishes of their
_landlords, and those landlords found that they had lost
portion of their influence, they would not fail to
take Speedy measures to restore it; and those
imeasures would be of a benevolent and conci-
tiatory nature, and not of that compulsory and
Yrannical character which now notoriously be-
longs to them. The difference would lie in the spe-
e:es of influence and in the cause in which it origi-
nated, Lord Nugent very justly observes that propos-
Junal representation of property is not and never was
e doctrine of the English Constitution ; yet, accor-
th the
to the present system, a man of large estate may
have
as many votes for
.a county as he can create 50/.
tenancies. The reason why it is not and has not
een the doctrine of our Constitution is obvious—viz.,
that the law of Henry VI. considered freeholders own-
ing lands worth forty shilling and ;upwards per an-
tn upon an equality as to their interest in the main-
tenance and welfare of the State. "The value of mo-
ney has since much changed, but at present the small
*state of a man who maintains his family out of it is
Just as important to him as the domain of an individual
u° has thousands a year to waste. The peasant's
coat of serge in the old story was more valuable to him
than the noble's cloak of silk.—Morning Chronicle.
. Sir Robert Peel is a powerful extinguisher of Ra
(1
pleat humbugs. The Right Hon. Baronet's sagacious
h°Phecy about the time of the Reform Bill passing,
at the hottest advocates of the measure would by-
an
or d'hY become louder and more virulent in their abuse
it than those Conservatives who had from the first
0'
PPosed it, has since been verified in the most signal
;antics by the Radical proceedings of each passing
eek, both in and out of Parliament. And this pre-
dictiont of the Conservative leader proved not merely
iie
acuteness of his judgment with regard to the par-
ticular subject of the observation, but his thorough
sel°,..wledge of the
parties who have assumed to them-
ciane: the name and character of " Liberal" politi-
• and of that sort of temper whence usually
-rises th
nothnn, e appetite for extensive change. There is
thos 1,6 more manifest than that nine-tenths
e wh,
our in Li even honestly cry out for "reform" of.
stitutions, have never once fixed down their
thataes
t ."1 any degree of staid or patient diligence to
.which is indispensable towards the successful
tqu'et:utit of a wise and statesmanlike policy—viz., the
Core:" of what practical mischief they wish to
pro and by what specific and definite measure they
12°se to meet it. " Reform," as some of its ad-
,eeochtiLgcs absurdly term it, seems to mean with these
tasti emen neither more nor less than change in ever-
nx succession. It is not with them an affair of
4intellect, or resulting from any process of moral
di,ea' or of enlightened meditation, but simply like the
def !e called a " wolf in the stomach"—it is an in-
atTable craving for somewhat more than has been
alre b
of what swallowed. Had any reasonable calculation
seenuat was right, or just, or consistent with a limited
aoloarehY, governed the desires of the " Liberal" party
chat gst US) they would have stated from the outset
h It was that they proposed. But they were, un-
a Ppii
pur Yi regulated by no such considerations. Their
Pose
the p with regard to the Crown—the Peerage—
frorrititrl%Pmer,tY—the Church of England, was to wring
of not what they ought to obtain for the sake
"tithe
Rios t general interest of the realm, but the ut-
the that they could by any means extort for
retiinesPecial use of one exclusive portion of the
educate
__lLt Were
" the democracy, composed of mere un-
u numbers. O'Connell, when explaining
a
41ne his views of necessary change, let out the
lie profligate and rapacious project :—" I will," said
ri„lget all I can for Ireland ;" not what it would
"vhiel;i, or LTlital)le, or hi ridi:!ial to the whclo Empire,
but lie professed at that time no wish to dismember,
trieot ~,ne would extort from England,and to the detri-
L r-ngland, the largest amount of political plun-

der that he could lay his hands on. Why, then, what
sort of statesmen are these ? What sort of lawgivers ?
How ought they to rank as patriots, when they look but
to one single class of the Queen's subjects as those for
whom alone, at any stage in the progress of legislative
reform—no matter what may have already been accom-
plished on behalf of " popular" rights—they feel
themselves bound to make the slightest exertion ?
When such men tell us, that in defiance of the Re-
form Bill, or indeed through the instrumentality of
that very Reform Bill, which before it had passed
into a law they extolled as the final annihilation of
Toryism, and the sheet-anchor of " good govern-
" ment" to the end of time, greater coercion and more
flagrant corruption are practised throughout England
than under the old borough system, do they consider
the import of their own words, and against whom they
bear? The Whigs and Radicals taken together are
still confessedly, and have been since the passing of
the Reform Bill, more numerous in Parliament than

at any former period. If, then, they have become so
much stronger, and intimidation and corruption at the
same time so much more prevalent, in whose favour
is it, upon their own showing, that intimidation and
corruption—ay, and " enormous lying," have been
most extensively resorted to ? But what party
is it, again, that has at command the preponde-
rancy of intimidation and corruption ? Is it not
the Government of the day ? Is it not prc-erni-
newly the Government of the present day, the most
notoriously wasteful, unscrupulous, and immoral, that
ever existed in this country ? Yet, in the teeth of such
a Government, and in contempt of it, what is the con-
dition of the House of Commons at this moment ?

Conservative power, barely inferior to that of the
united Radicals and Whigs : as compared with the
Whigs alone, constituting a majority of more than an
hundred. And these Radicals have the assurance to
boast that the Conservatives are returned mainly by in-
timidation and corruption !—that an increase of Con-
servative members from 120 in 1833, to 320 in 1837,

has been effected by intimidation and corruption I
Why, if the Conservative landlords and customers
can intimidate now, could they not equally practise
the same expedient three or four years ago, and
with the like results ? We must seek, then, for

some better solution of the mystery. We must get
up some more rational cause of the immense growth
of Conservative principle, simultaneously with the
flagitious increase of all the elements of official
and material power on the side of the Radical-
ridden Ministers. Truly and triumphantly did Sir R.
Peel retort upon the declaimers against Tory intimi-
dation, that the re-action had sprung from no such
fountain—that they who had intimidated with a ven-
geance were not Tories, but members of that eternal
movement faction which had really " frighted the
isle" back to her propriety by their incessant threats of
democratic revolution. The people of England, in
the words of Lord John Russell himself, " could
not afford a revolution once a-year." It is the
perpetual alarm kept up by the turbulent and wild
revolutionists—your suffrage-mongers, ballot-mongers,
&c., that the Constitution of our ancestors must be
destroyed, the Protestant Established Church thrown
down, the glorious limited monarchy of England
swept away, and a coarse, fierce, untaught, inflamma-
ble, tyrannical democracy, lifted up upon their ruins—
it is that terror, forced into the imaginations of men
who have been honest, though unthinking, Reformers,
until they saw what was about to be perpetrated
in the name of " Reform"—that it is, together with
a respectful confidence in the wisdom as well as cou-
rage of the Conservative leaders, entertained by the
bulk of the British nation, which has raised so irre-
sistible a reaction in this country, and which has of
itself prepared the defeat and downfall of the Whig-
movement alliance, now in the agonies of a common
dissolution. Of course, when men who have been
accustomed to think of Reform as something tangible
and definite, as in itself a specific movement of the
body politic, for the attainment of certain understood
and acknowledged ends, all within the sphere of the
Constitution, to be followed by a state of repose and
of stability—when, we say, such men find by expe-
rience that there is to be nothing definite, nothing ex-
plicit, nothing complete, nothing satisfactory, no resting
place, and no repose but the repose of death to all our in-
stitutions, they will feel that it is time to renounce that
compost of quackery and falsehood stupidly nicknamed
" Reform." On Tuesday night, again, there was more
of Radical absurdity exposed in the public market.
Messrs. Leader and C. Buller were the salesmen, but the
commodity would not take. Mr. Leader dealt pro-
fusely in—we, " the people." We, " the people of
England," forsooth I It was the Tooley-street tailors
over again. Lord John Russell, however, would not
bid a farthing for the whole lot of patriotism. His
Lordship seemed a more dogged Conservative even
than on the previous Monday ; and we are glad that,
as he evidently spoke for the Cabinet, and in conse-
quence of decisions adopted by the Cabinet, he
brought the vapouring Radicals to that test, which
most probably they have not virtue to abide by.
These men talk—Messrs. Buller, Leader, Hume,
Wakley, Grote, &c.,—they talk, we repeat, like men
ready to act upon their boastings. But they will not
substantially, or to any solid purpose, venture to oppose
this Ministry, feeble and tottering though it be. They
have beerikicked, it is true, by Lord John Russell,
but, bitter as may be their complaints, they will be
not the less apt for all that to kiss the foot that
tramples them. We expect to see them as abject and
confiding as before. In truth, to gain a separate victory
over the Whigs would be a small achievement for the
country. We want to see the Radicals cut off their
own escape, rejoin the ship, share the fate of the in-
fected and death-stricken crew, and one and all perish
irretrievably t ogether.— Times.
That the Whigs have immortalised themselves in
the memory of their country, by the greatest and most
beneficial reforms which were ever effected by reason

and argument, instead of violence and force, no one
whose recollection extends to the year in which they
were borne into office on the shoulders of the people,
can by possibility deny. The Reform Bill—itself so
glorious!y framed, and so unanimously carried—was in
itself a monument of fame of which any Ministry—in

fact, of which any people—might be justly proud. The
abolition of slavery was another not less memorable in

the annals of humanity, and which, in a few years, will
confer blessings upon thousands, as well as prosperity
upon our colonial possessions, which could never have
been obtained from the Tories at any price. The open-
ing of the East India trade was another—most bene-
ficial in its results, and which is daily operating to the
benefit of the people, both in a larger amount of ex-
ports as well as of imports. The Municipal Bill was
another measure which strengthened the hands of the
Government, while at the same time it conferred upon
the people their just and legal right of controul over
the management of their own affairs. Nor ought the
cause of the Dissenters of the United Kingdom to
be passed over without notice. They had their full
share of attention from the Whig Government, as
some persons are pleased to term the Administra-
tions of Lords Grey and Melbourne ; and it is an
unquestionable fact, that in relieving them from
the grievances of which they had so many just
reasons to complain, they overcame difficulties which
were previously conceived to be insurmountable.
We might extend the catalogue to many more mea-
sures of great value and great importance ; but the
above are sufficient to indicate the spirit which,
up to the commencement of the present Session,
has characterized the proceedings of the two Liberal
Administrations of Lords Grey and Melbourne.
It is still farther to the credit of the present Go-
vernment that it adheres with unflinching firmness to
every measure which it has hitherto, in a practical
shape, brought under the consideration of the Legis-
lature. The reform of the Irish Church—the settle-
ment of the Irish Tithe question, and of Church-rates
in England, as well as the amendment of the Reform
Act, both in the registration and the rate-paying
clauses, are honourably adhered to ; and with all these
claims upon the gratitude of the country—with all
these titles to distinction and confidence, it is a matter
of pain to us, which we have no language to express,
to be under the necessity of condemning, in the most
marked manner, the line of
policy which Lord John
Rissell has not only indicated, but repeated-- we
with sorrow—will in future characterise the Melbourne
Cabinet. When that Government was overthrown, we
" nailed our flag to the mast of Reform," and
both
pub-