The Sun.
London, England, 1837-12-13 00:00:00

t proportioned to its actual bona fide interest in

the tevenues so produced.

Mr. BAILEY has been returned for the Borough of
Sudbury, by a majority of 48 above Mr. MORRISON,
although Mr. MORRISON was the popular candidate,
and had every advantage in the opinion of all the res-
pectable electors of the Borough. But the absolute
refusal of Mr. MORRISON to employ or sanction any
corrupt means, gave Mr. BAILEY, whose friends had
no scruples, the return. Until some better system be
adopted, it is in vain to attempt such places as Sud-
bury upon any but the bribery plan.

Every day brings in fresh evidences of the earnest
desire of the electors of Great Britain and Ireland to

obtain the protection of the Ballot. Wherever public
opinion can manifest itself, meetings are held to peti-
tion the Legislature in favour of the adoption of this

most important measure. Edinburgh, Glasgow, Sun-
_ _

_
derland, Newcastle, Gateshead, and Gloucester, have

already forwarded petitions to Parliament expressive of
their conviction, that, without the Ballot, there can be

no such thing as freedom of election ; and their ex-
ample will soon be followe&by all the popular consti-
tuencies throughout the kingdom. The Tory clamour
.about the unmanliness of the Ballot is everywhere met

by an indignant reference to the present abject subser-
viency of the majority of the electoral body. " Unmanly
forsooth !" shout the electors—" Is it more unmanly to

exercise a right- as our conscience may dictate, without
`the
knowledge of
.others, than to perjure ourselves
under. a threat of coercion ?- Is is, manly to be driven
to the hustings, and there to vote away the liberties of
our country, to escape the vengeance of a powerful land-
lord-? Is it manly to be obliged to belie our principles in
public and priVate-=-4o be compelled, in self-justification,
to adjust our whole lives so
.as to deceive not only the
public but the members of our own families ? Is it
manly to be constrained to appear at every public
meeting called together, to pass resolutions opposed to
our secret convictions and principles ? Is it manly to
be dragged forward at dinners to cheer sentiments, and
propose and second toasts, which we inwardly and
most cordially detest ? Are proceedings such as
these—proceedings with which every constituency
in the country is practically conversant, and which
therefore may be assumed as thoroughly English
—more manly and independent than to vote as
we please, without exposing ourselves and our fami-
lies to intimidation from any quarter ? You never
dream of calling the French, the Prussians, or the
Americans unmanly, and yet they never vote but by
Ballot. In the clubs of the aristocracy all elections
are conducted by Ballot ; and if we ask why, our
landlords will deign to tell us, that the practice is
necessary to preserve social harmony in such institu-
tions—that were the votes openly given, there would
be quarrels, and perhaps bloodshed. This reasoning,
we contend, is as applicable to the constituency of a
borough as the members of a club ; and the system so
necessary to the prevention of bloodshed in the one, is
equally necessary to put an end to the fierce hatreds
engendered by open perjury and political partizan-
ship in the other. You tell us that the Ballot would
rob property of its legitimate influence. We deny that
it would have any such effect. On the contrary, we
maintain it would extend the only legitimate in-
fluence that property ought to have—the influence de-
rived from the just exercise of the power which it
must ever confer. It would give to the local aristocracy
a power which would enable them to bid defiance to
the long purses of political adventurers, prepared to
squander thousands for a seat for some place known to
them only as notorious for the corruption of its consti-
tuency. You would persuade us that the Ballot will not
prevent bribery. We ask you, will it lessen it ? There
will be always fools having more money than they know
well how to employ, and of these some will have recourse
to bribery. But the really dangerous men—the men
who seek seats in Parliament only to advance their
own interests at the expense of their country—will not
exchange a certainty for an uncertainty—will not part
with their gold to obtain a rogue's promise. They
are too shrewd not to know that the elector who would
violate his principles for a bribe would scruple still
less to tell a lie—or rather that he would vote honestly
as an act of reparation for having yielded to the seduc-
tion of a rogue as dishonest as himself. And why
should we be called upon to take into account the
disappointment of the briber under such circumstances?
Would he not be properly punished—or rather would
not the loss of his money be too slight a punishment
for such a scoundrel ? We warrant that having played
this game once, he would not be likely to at-
tempt it a second time. There would also be an
end of the degrading system of personal solicitation—
so derogatory to the elector and the elected. Those
electors whose want of moral courage leaves them at
the mercy of every candidate who is first in the field,
either to cajole or threaten them, would then obtain a
freedom of action which no other law can give them,
and thus a numerous body would be virtually added to
the popular constituency. And as the House o f
Commons, freely elected, would represent the public
opinion of the country, we submit that its legislative
acts would command the respect, and its decisions
control the influence of the House of Peers—thus
averting the immediate necessity of a change in the
constitution of that august body."
Such, in substance, is the language held by the
electors throughout the country on the question of the
Ballot. Resolved to be no longer the victims of a
system disgraceful to themselves and injurious to the
best interests of the nation, they have, in a majority of
instances, determined to demand the Ballot without
mixing up with that question either the extension of
the Suffrage, or the shortening the duration of Parlia-
ments. This is the only safe course. The Ballot, if
demanded alone, must be conceded. In an " Apology"
for that measure, published by Saunders and Otley,
and dedicated to that chalk-stone apostate, Sir FRANCIS
BURD ETT, it is proposed that a Bill shall be passed,
enacting that in every county, city, and borough, con-
victed of returning a Member or Members to Parlia-
ment by means of bribery and corruption, the Suffrage
shall be taken " therein and thereafter by Ballot." We
are not quite sure but that thiOnight be effected by
a resolution of the House of Commons. We know of
no law, common or statute, which declares that electors
shall vote openly in any case where it can be shown
that an open vote vitiates the moral independence of
the elector. The principle of the Constitution is
that elections shall be free—not that they shall be
thus or thus conducted ; and the Constitutional object
of every law upon the subject is to guarantee the en-
joyment of such freedom to all exercising the right of
franchise. The question of the Ballot is therefore
one upon which, in our opinion, the House of
Commons might challenge the right of adjudi-
cating, without the concurrence of any other
branch of the Legislature. The Ballot involves
nothing more than the mode of -exercising an acknow-
ledged political right, in such a way as to realize the
expectations of the Legislature in granting it—a right
of which the House of Commons can alone take cog-
nizance, with a view to the punishment of its gross
violation. But whether the House of Commons may,
or may not, assume the power of conceding the Ballot,
the people will not be the less certain of obtaining it,
provided they persevere in their earnest demand for it.
The SPOTTISWOODE conspiracy is the best argument
they can advance against the corruption of the present
sykem, because it is an argument which at once gives
the he direct to the sophisms of the Tories.

The whole of the Paris Journals of Monday have
been received. The following brief extracts from