The Sun.
London, England, 1865-06-19 00:00:00

LONDON, MONDAY, JUNE 19, 1865.

-__.....

Mr. BERKELEY'S annual motion on the Ballot is
one of the necessary and regular forms to be gone
through each session of Parliament, and it would be
a very unfitting conclusion to the labours of this
House of Commons if the 'lon. member had relaxed
his efforts. Year after year, with praiseworthy per-
severance, Mr. BERKELEY has stood forward on be-
half of this substantial reform, which, as Mr. COBDEN
very truly said many years ago, is the primary step
of all reform. Year after year argument, abuse,
and ridicule have been heaped upon the measure,
whose very merits naturally make it extremely un-
popular, and the sarcasm which has been levelled at
the motion has often been extended to the indefatig-
able but, apparently, hopeless efforts of the promoter.
But in spite of all difficulties, Mr. BERKELEY has
continued his efforts with unflagging zeal, and if his
arguments could not possibly be new every year,
neither could those of his adversaries. He had, be-
sides, the ever strengthening evidence of fact in his
favour, since the years that have elapsed since
he first begun his annual motion have shown
no change for the better in our mode of elec-
tions, but have proved how manifestly incompetent
the opponents of the Ballot are to deal with election
reform in any other manner. It is true that in
many cases there is unwillingness as well as incom-
petence, and a pure and genuine election is the last
thing wished for, but in many instances men of
ability and sincerity oppose the Ballot on principle,
who yet fail to suggest any practical remedy for
the existing state of things.

Mr. BERKELEY'S perseverance is now beginning
to reap the reward that perseverance in a good
cause is sure to win. There was no more hope of
his motion being carried on Friday night than there
has been •of similar success being achieved in other
years—but the laughter is dying out. The common
sense of the country is with him, and if neither
House of Parliament is as yet willing to sacrifice
private interest to the public good, his opponents
are beginning to occupy a very embarrassing posi-
tion from their persistent refusal to give the Ballot
even a partial or limited trial. Nothing could be
weaker than Lord PALMERSTON'S answer to Mr.
BERKELEY on Friday ; but, in fact,„ a good
many of the noble lord's reasons told entirely in
favour of his antagonist. Truth, said Lord PAL-
MERSTON, is not new, and nothing is stronger than
truth ; and this indisputable aphorism may give en-
couragement to the friends and supporters of honest,
if secret, voting. Lord PALMERSTON falls back
upon his old argument, that the elector's vote is not
a personal privilege, but the exercise of a trust
reposed in him by the community for their benefit.
But why is a trust for another to be fulfilled less
faithfully than a personal right? If Lord PAL-
MERSTON means that it is a trust reposed in the
tenant farmer for the benefit of his landlord, in the
tradesman for his customer, in the clerk for the
head of his firm, in the working man for
his employer, the present mode of securing
the fulfilment of the duty is certainly the most
efficacious. This would appear to be his real
meaning, for he quietly observes that " there must
be influence by one or another, and it is a natural
thing that there should be harmony between the pro-
prietor of land and those who carry on their oceupa_
s
lions under them." This is a very clear and simple
argument, and Lord PAL3IERSTON carries it a little
further. He says " Whether it is territorial influ-
ence, or the influence of mercantile wealth, or of
commercial engagements, you cannot divest man-
kind of those influences which are inherent in the
nature of things and must influence the conduct of
men." Why, then, have a Corrupt Practices Pre-
vention Bill, why have a Reform Bill in 1832, why
talk of the elector's vote as a public trust? It would
be better to say at once that the Tote in boroughs