The Sun.
London, England, 1853-06-15 00:00:00

' oven more notorious still ; and he invited the right hon •
the Secretary at War to go with him to a northern county
in that country, and he would show him that the spirit of
the Duke orNewcastle was not dead, but lived as much
in the Marquis of Londonderry as ever it had done in the
Duke of Newcastle. (Hear.) (The hon. member, in
il-
I ustration, quorted several passages from a correspondence
published in tire newspapers about a year ago, between the
Marquis of Londonderry and Mr. David Ker, in which
the noble marquis, in reference to the county of Down,
spoke of "his voiles," and of his right in consideration of
his influence, and the money which his forefathers had ex-
pended in the county, to return one member.) The Rev.
Mr. Ford, of the comity of Down, was an exile on ac-
count of pecuniary embaprassments, and in his absence
his son and the rector of the parish managed his election-
eering business, and they called the tenants into the farm-
yard and treated them, in order to induce them to break
the promise they had given to vote for the candidates pro-
posed by Sharman Crawford. These extracts ought to
satisfy the right hon. Secretary at War that the spirit of
the Duke of Newcastle was not dead, and, therefore, that
tho argument which the right hon. gentleman had founded
on the contrary supposition was untenable.
Lord E. HILL begged to be allowed to inform the house
that the correspondence on which the hon. member had
commented in such kind terms, had no reference to the

present representation of the county of Down. (Hear.)
Mr. BRIGHT said he was glad that Mr. Ker had not
suffered himself to be driven from the field, but stood for

the county. The hon. member then proceeded to read
passages from other correspondence relative to other elec-
tions in Ireland, with the view of showing that improper
influence had been used to procure the return of members.
Mr. Blayney, a barrister, wrote to John Rooney, his
bailiff, on the 22d of May, 1852, expressing his regret at
hearing his tenants " were inclined to vote for the mur-
derers of the tenant league"—(laughter)—and declaring
that if they should do so, they would be visited by marks
of his displeasure. In the county of Monaghan the agent
of Lord Blayney wrote as follows to that nobleman's
tenantry :—" I wish the tenants to vote for Sir G. Forster
placed
Mr.
laeedvi Leslie,li and I
have
noheseixtapteicet the tenants over
l awmhsonm I
surprised
te thatthae n
eye
toinnetys u lsdnpmuerpeofse t
hv oeti n
tenants,g
for D re.
nG r ar
eye
e,
ians.
nt rga nt ghe
mandate, wrote to Lord Blayney, in London, complaining
of it, and his lordship wrote a very gentleman-like letter,
in which he repudiated any wish to influence the votes of
his tenants, notwithstanding which the agent persisted in
coercing them, in order to make them vote as he wished.
Much was said about the influence exercised by the Catho-
lie priests in Ireland, but as far as his observation ex-
tended, the priests only exerted themselves to counteract
the pressure put upon the tenants by the landlords of Ire-
land. (Hear, hear.) Protestant clergymen, however,
could interfere in election matters as well as Catholic
priests. The Dean of Ross, the agent of Lord Stratford,
wrote a letter to the Belfast Chronicle, to which he begged
to solicit the attention of the hon. member for Warwick-
shire, who was slumbering at the end of one of the opposite
benches. (A laugh.) In this letter the rev. gentleman
s•d(1, " Lord Stratford is most anxious for the return of
Mr. Inglis, and the result of the contest will prove to his
lordship whom he may regard as his friends in his future
relations with the town." A list had been furnished him
by two gentlemen, named Richardson and Miller, of 27
tenants who voted against the wishes of the noble lord,
and who since received notice to quit, while six had actu-
ally been evicted. Seven persons, who did not vote at all,
had received notice to quit, and one had been evicted. He
(lid not know whether the Secretary at War might consi-
der these cases exceptional or exaggerated, but he believed
the hon. members for Ireland could show that they were
neither the one nor the other. The question was, would
the ballot remedy such evils ? In his opinion, it would ,• he
did not conceive that Lord Londonderry would have written
the letter he had read, had the 7,000 electors of the county
of Down gone up to vote by secret ballot ; nor did he be-
lieve, had the ballot existed, that the gentlemen of Mona-
ghan would have pursued the course he had described.
Let him take the case of Durham. He knew something
about the city of Durham, for he had fought two contests.,
there—the fiercest contests known there for many year s.
Well, at Durham, Lord Londonderry, who seemed to have
a mania for this sort of power, had more than 100 men 'sm-
ployed in his collieries within seven miles of the city—a
circumstance giving them each a vote—and these men the
noble lord would bring up in omnibuses and carts to vote
at the elections for the city of Durham for his member,
and then have them taken back again as they came. He
himself had no reason to complain of Lord Londonderry or
his 100 voters, for it so happened that, owing to some dis-
pute at the time between the noble marquis and the church
party at Durham, the noble marquis's men were not quite
in hand, so that many of them voted as they pleased on
that particular occasion. What he complained of was the
system—a system as ruinous to the individuals who sup-
ported it as it was disgraceful to the country in which it
was practised. He would now advert to the United States.
In the United States, as was well known, there were far
more Parliamentary elections than in this country, for, be-
sides the elections to Congress, there were the elections to
the 32 or 33 states ; yet such a thing as an election peti-
tion with such a charge as corruption or intimidation or
bribery, was not, he believed, known in the United States.
(Hear, hear.) The Secretary at War, followed by
the Lord Advocate, had endeavoured to make out that
nothing could be so detrimental to morality as the secret
ballot system. Now, if there was a state, or province, or
district in the world in which the whole population was
emphatically well educated, comfortable in their circum-
stances, independent in their character, superior as a body
of men to any equal body of men to be found anywhere in
the world on the same space of ground, that province, that
state, was the State of Massachusetts. (Hear, hear.)
Now, the State of Massachusetts, the colonists of Boston,
established the ballot so far back as 1634, and the only
time when the ballot was discontinued there was when it
was abolished by Governor Andrew, who was sent there
bylames 11. in 1688, and who, in his anxiety to destroy
the liberties of Massachusetts, conceived that his first
and most effective step was to overthrow the freedom of
election by ballot. (Hear, hear.) In order to exhibit the
present position of the vote by ballot in Massachusetts the
hon. member then read portions of two letters from Messrs.
Dawson and Amason Walker, the former now, and the
latter lately, a member of the Massachusetts Legislature,
describing the mode of voting by ballot, and declaring that
the franchise was regarded by the entire population of the
province as the Palladium of their liberties. The ballot
itself was described to be enclosed in a self-sealing en-
velope, so that, while the name of every person voting was
checked as ho dropped his envelope into the ballot box, it
was impossible to know how he voted. [The hon. member
hero exhibited one of the envelopes bearing the stamp of
the State of Massachusetts, used in voting by ballot in that
State.] There was no possibility of fraud under the system
there practised ' • and when he heard gentlemen speak of
the impossibility of securing perfect secrecy, he must,
say, we would be the most stupid people in the world
if we could not make some mechanical contrivance to
effect that object. (Hear, hear.) He believed the noble
lord, the member for the city of London, and the house,
were anxious to put an end to the corruption that pre-
vailed, but they would never succeed in doing so un-
less something better than they had hitherto tried was
resorted to. (Hear, hear.) If they found an effectual
system existing in the New England States, it surely was
worth their while to see if they also could not by some
other means than acts against bribery and corruption
secure the object which they all aimed at. (Hear, hear.)
The dignity and character of that house were maged
not merely throughout the country but the world by the
transactions that occurred at some of their elections. Just
as there were men who did not like to go through the un-
pleasantness of a canvass for a seat in the East India
Company, so there were men who did not like to submit
to the humiliation or degradation connected with seeking
a seat in that house. If they were not hypocrites to them-
selves and the country, they were bound to take up this
question in earnest, and not only give leave for the intro-
duction of the present bill, but pass it on to the other
House of Parliament. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. S. KNOX denied some of the allegations made by
the hon. member for Manchester with reference to the
intimidation of electors in Ireland, and observed that the
object of the ballot seemed to bo that people should pro-
mise one way and vote another. (Hear, hear.)
Lord E. HILL defended the Rev. Mr. Ford from the
imputations cast on him by the hon. member for Man-
chester, which seemed to imply that he had gone away
for some crime or another. [Mr. BRIGHT said, he had
only stated the rumour that he had gone away from pecu-
niary causes.]—That was nearly the same thing, for it left •
the house to infer that he had to fly for some cause that
he could not face. Now, he could testify that a more
honourable man, a better landlord, did not exist in the
county of Down. (Hear.) He denied also the inferences
that might be drawn from the hon. gentleman's statement
with reference to his election and that of Mr. Ker. In
fact, Mr. Ker was returned in spite of the Marquis of
Londonderry. (Hear, hear.) Then, as to Major Waring,
ho was a strong Protestant—indeed known as a King
William man, but that did not suit the hon. member for
Manchester, who preferred a Roman Catholic. The hon.
gentleman had enough to say against the landlords, but
not a word as to the intimidation of the Roman Catholic
clergy. (Hear, hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL.—My right hon. friend the Secretary
at War, and my right hon. and learned friend the Lord
Advocate, having addressed the house upon this subject, I
should hardly have thought it necessary to say anything
ad not my personal conduct been misrepresented—unin-
tentionally, no doubt—by the hon. gentleman who brought
forward this motion. The hon. gentleman thought fit to
represent that, while I had held very popular language in
opposition, I had, when in office, changed my course and
taken a very different view of the subject. The fact is,
that the speech the hon. gentleman alluded to was made
in the month of July last, previous to my election for the
city of London. I had voted in this house against the
ballot a few weeks before, and when I was asked before a
large meeting in Guildhall what course I should take on
the ballot, I said I should vote against it, and I gave my
reasons to that numerous assembly, which-generally meets
in Guildhall on those occasions, against the secret voting
the hon. gentleman proposes. It was not, as the hon. gen-
tleman supposed, wheal accepted office; but at that time,
as I had constantly done, I stated my intention to vote,
and I have voted, against this secret mode of voting. It
appears to me--and I stated to my constituents at that
time—that the foundation upon which the argument rests
is a foundation entirely contrary to that upon which the
hon. gentleman the member for the West Riding bases his
I argument upon this occasion. The hon. member for the
West Riding says that no man has a right to inquire how
another man votes. The principle which I stated was, that
this is a public trust, and that every man who exercises
that public trust exercises it subject to the opinion and
judgment of all his fellow citizens. (Hear, hear.) Be it
remarked that the hon. gentleman who made this motion
has proposed it as a change by itself. My hon. friend the
member for Montrose proposes it in connexion with some
other measure ; but, be that as it may, the hon. gentleman
proposes that those who have a right to vote should exer-
cise that vote without any of his fellow citizens knowing
how he votes. This is contrary to the principle which
prevails with regard to all our other institutions, and the
general principles of the Constitution. I have heard it
said and have seen it written, that to say that any person
should have the power of judging how a person who exer-
cised the trust might vote, was saying that that person was
himself qualified to vote. (Hear.) I hold that that
language has no force in it, because we might as well say
that no one should criticise the conduct of a judge or the
verdict of a jury, unless he was qualified to sit as that
judge or give a verdict as a jury. (Hear.) We might as
well say no one should criticise a work unless he was
qualified to write it. It seems to me the people of this
country, unless the suffrage is made to extend to every
man, have a right of exercising their judgment on the
mode in which the votes of individuals are given, and I
hold that that superintendence and that exercise) of public
opinion is a most wholesome check upon voters. Rat
hold besides this, that the enactment of a secret mode o