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

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JUNE 15, 1853.

for though taking cognizance of bribery and open intimi- their speeches, and to see the contrast between them and
dation, and physical force leading to a breach of the peace, the miserable futile break-down arguments of Cabinet
they passed by this screw. Though its operation came be- Ministers. (Hear, hear.) But he felt bound to meet the
fore them as a matter of course, yet as a matter of course latest objections on record to the principle of vote by ballot.
they must pass over it, for there was no law which they The members of the present cabinet seemed but too glad to
could wield against it. This was remarkably exemplified creep under the gaberdine of the Times for shelter. The
in the Clitheroe committee. They referred, in their report ballot, said tho Times, was a question not of philosophy
to bribery and physical force intimidation, but said not a but of fact. It would not prove an efficient protection
word of that more deadly intimidation which turned the to the voter, because in these days every man's opinions
small farmer out of his barn or his house, which ruined the were known. He (Mr. Berkeley) would admit that the
tradesmen, or put the debtor in prison. That was passed question was one of fact and not of philosophy. But on
by ; coming under the name of the screw, the committee whose side was the fact, and on whose side was the phi-
did not feel authorised to report upon it. To show how the losophy, or rather the sophistry ? (Hear, hear.) " Does
screw acted at Clitheroe, he would read a letter of one elec- the ballot (it is asked) prevent a man's opinions from being
tion agent, who hired another election agent for the pur- known ?" The concealment of a man's opinions depended
pose, and the sole purpose of putting on this election screw. on himself, but the main and material fact was, that the
It was a letter from one William Wheeler, the agent of ballot prevented the man's vote from being known.
Mr. Matthew Wilson, the sitting member, to Robert Wat (Cheers.) He was speaking in the presence of an assembly
ton, a fanner, who it appeared was a gentleman that had that protected themselves from the Sir Lucius O'Triggers
great influence with poachers and prizefighters; and he had of society by means of the ballot, and lie put it to them
been tampered with to obtain a snob of 300 men to bully to say, if the ballot did not enable them to conceal their
and beat the electors, but it seemed ho preferred the ser- votes, and, if they wished it, their opinions also ? (Hear,
vice of Mr. Wilson, and altogether rejected these overtures. hear.) Well, but the Sir Lucius O'Triggers of politica
That letter was as follows :—" Dear Sir,—We are greatly were more dangerous than the Sir Lucius O'Triggers of
obliged to you for your letter of the 28th of June, and for society ; and was it fair or just, ho would ask, in them,
your kind exertions on the part of Mr. Wilson. Every with their broad acres and their broad cloth, to seek to
vote that we can get will be wanted, and therefore I should conceal their votes and opinions by means of the ballot and
be glad to hear of any addition to our etrength. James deny the same protection to men who wore fustian and
Watson, of Brownlow, has not yet promised ; and although men who were tenants-at-will? (Hear, hear.) Would they
we expect he will vote for Mr. Wilson, still a word from answer that question ? (Hear.) He often put it before,
you, will, perhaps, get a definite promise. They are put- but he never yet got an answer. (Hear.) But he denied
ting on the screw with their tenants in all directions, and as a mere matter of fact, that the electors could not conceal
we must do the same in self-defence. Have you any other their opinions, and that they must necessarily bo known.
tenants voters? Mr. Sutcliffe Witham has a Joseph Green (Hear.) It was said that the poor electors were too garru-
who is all right, and a Tomlinson whom I should like you lens, and that their opinions must be known. Why there
to see ; in fact, any one you have any influence over. Of were hundreds of thousands of poor persons in this country
course you must charge me with your personal expenses associated together who did keep their secrets inviolate.
and loss of time, which I shall be glad to pay. With (Hear, hear.) He was, himself, a member of the Foresters
thanks, believe me yours truly, W. WHEELER.—June 30, and Odd Fellows Societies--(laughter)—and he had no
1852, Clitheroe." If these electors were as many buck- doubt many of the members around him were in the same
rabbits they could not be spoken of more contemptuously, position. (Hear, hear.) He knew there was a vast number
and the mode of handling buck-rabbits was very suggestive of Odd Fellows in the House of Commons. (Muchlaughter.)
of the mode in which tile gentlemen dealt with the elec- Now he never knew that the secrets of these societies had
tors. (Hear. hear.) They took them by the ears, and trans- been betrayed either from garrulity, or drink, or any
ferred them from one side to the other, without any com- misplaced confidence in woman. (Laughter.) He had
plaint or resistance from the docile tenants-at-will. heard the wives of Freemasons' declare that there could be
(Laughter.) Was this a state of things which an enlightened no secret in freemasonry, because if there was they would
nation should suffer without attempting to apply a remedy? be sure to get it out of them in their soft hours. So much
But against intimidation they had no remedy whatsoever. for the general habits of the people. (Laughter and
He defied the-most astute member of that house to point cheers.) He had been challenged to deal with facts, and
out anything like a remedy for it. (Hear, hear.) There he would now produce evidence to show that the political
was no remedy but the ballot ; and they knew it. opinions of the electors were not generally known. In
(Cheers.) They could make no law to prevent a landlord these days and under the present electoral system, poor
from ejecting a tenant-at-will when he pleased. The land- men no more dared to assert their political opinions than
lord was not obliged to assign his reason for doing it ; they dared to give their votes contrary to the wishes of
and they could not make him assign one. They could their landlords. The tenants-at-will, it was said, had no
pass no law to prevent that. They could make no political opinions of their own. They had political opinions
law to prevent a customer from changing his tradesman of their own, but they dared not express them. (Hear.)
as often as ho pleased ; it was utterly impossible to The tradesmen of this country likewise had their opinions,
make a law to prevent that. They could make no law to but they were obliged to conceal them or theirbread would
stay the judgment creditor, and prevent him from putting be endangered. (Cheers.) He was sorry to detain the
his debtor either into the polling-booth or into prison. house so long, but on this point he begged their attention
(Hear, hear.) That was utter impossible. Through to the evidence of Mr. James Mather, given before a com-
every grade and phase of society they could make no law mittee in 1835: "You have been a land surveyor ?—I
to compel the employer to keep on the employed. Then, have. In what counties ?—Brocknock, Shropshiro, York-
what act could they pass to prevent this intimidation? shire, Oxfordshire, Middlesex ; but my business has called
The cases he had referred to were those in which the very mo to many other parts of England. You have had an
gist of intimidation consisted. Open voting exposed the opportunity of knowing the opinions of farmers on most
voter to the influence of persons who, by the knowledge subjects ?—My business has led me very much among that
they so obtained, were able to deal out punishment or re- class of men. I wish you to confine yourself entirely to
ward to the elector. The elective franchise was thus their political relations with their landlords, and with a
wrested from the class that was legally entitled to it, and view to that part of the subject I ask, among what class of
was usurped by others, who had no right to it at all, more par- tenants do you believe most independence is to be found?
ticularly by peers of the realm, who were forbidden by Among those who have a leasehold tenure ; but their in-
law from interfering in elections for members of Perlis- dependence is very much governed by circumstances.
ment. (Cheers.) Secret voting was the only mode of What circumstances ?—The length of the lease, for in-
preventing this evil, and he should not trouble the house stance. I have always remarked that farmers are more
on the subject of intimidation, further than to add two inclined to assert their political opinions at the commence-
pithy sentences—one by the best authority of the olden meat of their tenure than at its conclusion. (Cheers.) I
time, the other by the first authority of modern days, presume you mean in cases where they disagree in politics
" There is no way to stop this evil, it is so engrained in with their landlords ?—Yes ; and especially if the landlord
the people, but by the way of balloting," said Daniel be a strong politician. There are some landlords who do
De Foe. " There is no way of stopping intimidation, but not interfere. Is that, in your opinion, a large class I—No,
by making intimidation mechanically impossible," ex- on the contrary, for if tholandlord have no strong political
claimed George Grote. (Cheers.) His complaint was that, bias of his own, in nine cases out of ten he interferes with
though intimidation was raging through the land like an his tenantry from the instigation of some neighbour who
epidemic, and though they had as certain a remedy for it has. Do you consider that politics are liable to breed ill-
as vaccination was for the small-pox, they denied to the will between landlord and tenant ?—I do, especially when
country the cure. (Hear, hear.) One feature was re- the tenants have leases. How? Where they are tenants-
markable in all the speeches of the present Ministry, from at-will ?—Much less so, because tenants-at-will have no will
Lord Aberdeen downwards,— the admission of the deplor- as far as politics are concerned ; they know they must vote
able faults of our electoral system. This admission was as their landlords please, and make up their minds to do so.
made at the eleventh hour. (Hear, hear.) Up to this (Hear.) Are there not exceptions to the rule ?—There may
time almost, those faults had been most audaciously de- be, but you will find themveryrare. Have you found, gene-
Med. Lord Aberdeen said—" Some amendment of our re- rally, that tenants-at-will are contented to ho thus go-
presentative system is necessary • and unquestionably the verned ?—I have observed that the most intelligent among
result of the last election has not been calculated to render that class, consequently the best agriculturists are by no
any man more enamoured of the present system." His means contented ; but they cannot help themselves ; while
lordship used that strong expression before the recent die- those men, whose families have held their farms without
closures in the committees : What would he say now? being disturbed from generation to generation, are just as
(Hear, hear.) When Lord John Russell appeared as a can- well satisfied to pay their votes to their landlords as their
dictate for the suffrages of the electors of London, the peo- rents, and consider it much the same thing. Do you cou-
ple called on him to give them the ballot ; and he (Mr. eider this class of men less intelligentl—l do. These are
Berkeley) was perfectly ashamed of the imbecility of the the same sort of men who oppose all improvements, and
reason which so great a statesman was compelled to resort tell you that their fathers did so before them, and that
to. (Hear, hear.) The gist of what he said was that there things went on as well then as they do now. Do you think
must be perfect equality in our institutions ; that we could the tenantry of the country generally would like to vote by
not admit of secret voting in one, unless we admitted it in ballot ?—A vast majority would ; but there are a class of
all ; and he illustrated that position in a very extraordinary them who, I have no doubt, would have as much horror of
manner. He said that as the proceedings of courts of law the ballot as I have known them profess for subsoil, drain-
were open, so should the proceedings of those who elected age, and the drill plough. You have said that you think
members to serve in Parliament. (Hear, hear.) Who in- the majority of farmers would prefer the ballot, how do
timidated a judge? Who corrupted a jury ? Who could you account for the fact that fewer petitions have been
command, by dint of punishment or reward, the charge of presented by that class of men to the House of Commons
a judge or the verdict of a jury ? (Hear, hear.) How than any other in favour of it I—The reason appears to me
could the publicity of judicial proceedings injure either plain. When you say farmers, I take it for granted you
judge or jury? (Hear, hear.) But they knew that Parlia- mean tenants-at-will. Well, then, a tenant-at-will no
mentary electors were intimidated, that voters were cor- more dare sign a petition on a political subject than he
rupted, that the decision of the elector was governed by the dare vote without the concurrence of his landlord ; and
fear of punishment and the hope of reward, and that the the ballot is more dreaded by landlords than any other
publicity of the proceedings led to a fraud on the conscience reform whatever. Then you think tenants-at-will dare
of the voters. What analogy could there be between those not entertain any political opinions?-4 do not say that ;
two cases ? Who could forget the speeches made by the but 11 do say that they dare not express them. If a tenant-
noble lord at Perth and Leeds ?At Perth the noble lord at-will were to express opinions hostile to those of a strong
had said that it was true conservatism not to oppose the political landlord—for instance, if he were known to be
just demands of the people. Did he not talk of democracy favourable to the ballot, he would be treated es he treats
having its rights as well as aristocracy ; and how much a tainted sheep, and be drafted from the flock." (Cheers.)
safer it was to yield those rights rather than to wait until If they turned over the 900 pages of evidence contained in
they were forced ? What did tho noble lord say at Leeds ? the book from which he quoted, they would find, by the
—" I believe that the institutions of this country would testimony of Mr. Wilcox and Mr. Fitzgerald, both of them
be entirely impracticable—would entirely fail--would magistrates, and of the late Col. Bruen, who had been a
break to pieces in the working if the machinery, if it were member of that house, that the electors of Ireland dared
not for the good sense, the moderation, and, I may say, the no more to express their political opinions than the tenants-
wisdom of the people ; but I believe in that good sense, at-will in England. (Hear, hear.) The only difference
that moderation, that wisdom. wo have a security for the was, that the Irish landlords did not disguise or mince the
future welfare and prosperity of those institutions." But matter, but openly proclaimed their right to command the
the language of the noble lord was very different when in votes of their tenants. (Hear) And he would show that
opposition and when a member of the Government, for that feeling was as rampant now in Ireland as it was in
what did ho say when ho stood for the City of London? 1835. He would show that coercion of the voter existed
Lord J. RUSSELL—AII the addresses, that to the elec- to an extent which was scarcely credible. (Hear, hear.)
tors of the City of London included, were delivered in Here was the case of Mr. Henry De Burgh, a landlord
opposition. in the county of Monaghan. Mr. De Burgh writes
Mr. BERKELEY thought that the address to the elec- to the editor of the Daily Express as follows :—" Bol-
ters of London was made when the noble lord had joined camp, St. Doulough's, Raheny, August 17, 1852.—Sir,
the present cabinet. (Oh, oh.) It did not much matter —Perhaps you will make use of the inclosed corres-
whether that were so or not, because all he wished to show pondence to suit the purposes of the day. John Murphy
was that there was a discrepancy and a change of tone in is a tenant on the lands of Skeborn, in the county of Men-
the language used by the noble lord on these different occa- aghan. I asked him for his vote. He voted against me.
gone. (Hear.) After extolling the good sense, modem- I directed the sub-agent, Mr. Johnson, to enforce all rent
tion, and wisdom of the people, the noble lord said, in justly due and payable, without pressure or hardship.
fact, to the electors of London, " Oh, but I shall stand by He wrote the letter No. 1 • this morning I received from
and see the vote torn from the side of good souse, modern- Murphy the letter No. 2; I wrote my reply No. 3. You
tion, and wisdom, and usurped by tyranny, oppression, may make what editorial use of the subject and letters
and arbitrary conduct. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord said you please. If the landlords of the country (i.e., the Con-
that the democracy had its rights, and that they depended servative) would all do likewise, the posts would soon
on the good sense of the people for the existence of their be considered by their own flocks as the political
institutions ; but when it came to the point he refused to vampires they unquestionably are.—HENRY DE BURGH."
give them the free and uncontrolled use of their voices. —" Snow-hill, Monaghan, August 5, 1852. Sir, —I
If the noble lord would listen to and hear the language of have this day received instructions from Mr. De Burgh,
the people, he would find them saying that in the team of to call on you for all rent and arrears of rent to be
reform the noble lord was the best collared horse, but the paid on your holdings up to May, 1852, otherwise to
moment he took office, he became restive, he turned "jib- take the necessary proceedings for the recovery of it.—
ber," broke his collar, and sat down on his breeching. Your obedient, JOHN JOHNSON.—Mr. John Murphy.—
(Loud laughter.) He would now come to the speech P.S. This must be settled next week, J. J."—" Skeborn,
which the right hon. gentleman the First Lord of the Ad- Aug. 10, 1852.—Mr. De Burgh,—Sir,—lnclosed I send
miralty delivered at Carlisle. The right hon. baronet said, you a note I got from Mr. Johnson, which will, I hope,
"No man can view with more disgust than Ido the inti- bear my excuse for troubling you. I hope, sir, you will
midation, bribery, and corrupt practices which have pre- not persevere at this unusual season to press for rent.
veiled at elections, and even at the last general election in What I would be able to accomplish in two months, with-
this country. It is cruel when men have a privilege which out doing me any injury, would be a heavy loss to press
they ought to exercise freely and independently for either for now, as I have grass taken for two of my cows. I
landlords or employers to intimidate them by threats, or would consequently lose their benefit for the three best
for customers to declare to tradesmen that if they do not months, as butter is 3d. per pound better now than in
vote in a particular way they shall be deprived of custom. summer. I will be able to pay you in October all demands.
It is unworthy of this free country that any man I fondly hope, respected sir, you will be so kind and in-
should be exposed to what I hold to be such tyranny dulgent as to grant the time I have requested, and I will
and oppression." (Hear, hear, and cheers.) The house pray for your welfare. I have to remark I have all rent
could imagine the upturned faces of the people when paid up to May, 1851.—1 am, your respected servant,
they heard the benign voice of tho right honourable gen- JOHN MURPHY.—Sir,—If you favour me with a reply,
man, and that the cry of Graham for ever" became the direct 'in care Mr. John Leghorn, Clones.'" This was
order of the day. (Hear, and laughter.) But though the the respected master's reply :—" St. Doulough's Raheny,
right hon. gentleman was ready to put a stop to intirnida- August 16, 1852. Sir,—Yours of the 10th was forwarded
tion, he did not believe the ballot would do it. Yet the here. Mr. Johnson has acted strictly according to his
right hon. gentleman did not say that anything else would. instructions. You refused your landlord the compliment
Ho had recourse to arguments so weak and untenable, that of your vote. Be it so. Let there be no compliment
the right hon. gentleman must be at his wit's end—and between us. Vote as you please ; but pay up your rents
that was at a considerable distance—(laughter)—when he to the day they are usually payable, or I shall make you.
used them. The right hon. baronet said they could not No doubt but your political supporters will grant you the
enact in this free country that every man should give his favour that I refuse, and enable you to pay your year's
vote in secret, and that without this the ballot would be rent due on the Ist day of May, 1852.—Your obedient
found flagrantly inefficient, for if the voter refused to give servant, HENRY DE BURGH.—Mr. John Murphy, Sauey,
his vote openly when asked by his landlord to do so, the Clones." Then he thought Murphy would have been the
landlord would assume that his secret vote was given better for the ballot. (Loud cheers.) He thought after
against him, and he would act accordingly. But on what what he had quoted, they might come to the conclusion
authority did the right hon. gentleman assume that the 9 that the serfdom of the tenant voter was as great in Ire-
could not pass an act requiring that every vote should be land as it was in England. (Hear, hear.) It was now
taken secretly? (Hear.) What principle of the constitu- twenty-one years since the noble lord made a speech at
tion would be violated by enabling a man to exercise the Torquay on this subject, and he hoped some friend might
franchise with perfect freedom and absence of control ?
(Hear,) Those men who would be most ready to oppress persuade the noble lord to abide by that speech. The noble
lord then said—" Great as I apprehend the inconvenience
the voter might indeed find their manliness and feelings of the ballot would be, yet if it come to this, that I must
dreadfully shocked, but the electors themselves would re- either adopt such a measure, or see the tenantry of Eng-
joice exceedingly if such an act were passed. (Hear, hear.) land ranged at elections, contrary to the feelings of them-
The second argument of the right hon. gentleman was per-
fectly "stale, flat, and unprofitable." (Laughter.) No- selves, I should have no doubt ; I should at once renounce
my opinion, and at once adopt the vote by ballot." The
thing could be more pharasaical. " I believe," said the noble lord, no doubt, passed much of his time in the
right hon, gentleman, "that with the ballot you would
princely mansion of his brother, the Duke of Bedford, of
have Flowkers and Frails—men of quickness and judgment whom ho never heard it insinuated that he ever punished
sent down from the Carlton Club to purchase voters by a tenant for any vote he gave, or that he ever intimidated
wholesale in the small constituencies on the principle of
no return no pay." He (Mr. Berkeley) would admit that any voter from voting against him. (Cheers.) Conse-
quently, the noble lord might have some excuse at that
for the sake of argument. But, then, what would be done early period for thinking that the tenants would not be
on the other side ? Why, that the Coppocks would be ranged at elections contrary to their feelings. But he
sent down to oppose the Flewkers and Frails. (Hear.) must suppose that the noble lord, like Rip Van Winkle,
The Coppocks would no doubt be armed with a good
must have slept 20 years, if he was not cognisant of all the
heavy purse, and the electors, as they did now, would sell
evidence that had been thundered into their ears ever
themselves to the highest bidder. But the ballot would since; and if he did not see and admit that the tenants- i
render the market uncertain, and people would not like to at-will were ranged under their separate leaders
risk their money in that way. Her Majesty's Govern- to vote contrary to their own opinions and the good'and led
of the
ment were pledged to bring in a large measure of reform. community. Was it not notorious that the electors of the
That measure of reform was "looming in the distance"— same estate voted for Whig or Tory as it changed into the
(laughter)—but it was so far off that it could only be seen hands of landlords of these respective opinions ? (Hear.)
by ministerial telescopes. (Laughter.) He would assume I That was proved in evidence, and Mr. Ward clearly showed
that this measure of reform would enlarge the suffrage, I hat the fact was so. (Hear, hear.) Who could be deaf to
and thus get rid of the small constituencee. (Hear, hear.)
the evidence in the case of the South Notts election, where
If that were so, then the argument of the right hon. gen- the tenants were led up to vote like so many vermin ?
made a stock in trade of the Flewkers and Frails, the Co
Osman had no force whatever. The right hon. gentleman
Cop- he deaf to the state of things now existing ? He called
(Hear, hear.) Was the noble lord deaf to all this ? Was
pocks and Edwardses, et id genus eons. But he regarded upon the noble lord, as an honeet man, to deny, if he
these people iu the light of a gas, which, by its escape, dared, his conviction of the truth of the representation
gave notice of the presence of a corrupting body. (Hear, which he gave of the existing state of things. (Hear,
hear.) Let them get rid of the festering body, and they
hear.) If he could not, he called on the noble lord to fulfil
would then not suffer from the gas. (Hear, hear.)
But they kept a great weltering dunghill of corruption, ' his pledge, and to vote for the ballot. It was said that the
vote by ballot was a measure of democratic tendency.
and they found fault with the fungi that grew there ! ' How could that be so, when the noble lord told them that
(Hear.) He would now put in bright and pleasing it was to the good sense, the moderation, and the wisdom
contrast to these miserable shifts and arguments of i
of the people that they owed the continuance of their con-
cabinet ministers the straightforward declaration of the I
R. Bethell). That hon. and learned stitution ? (Hear, hear.) What preternatural power was
Solicitor-General (Sir
there in the ballot of converting loyal, wise, and moderate
gentleman told the electors of Aylesbury that "it was not , men into democrats, socialists, and republicans? Was
I
within his power to describe the character or the details the privilege of giving an unfettered vote fraught with
of the reform measure which the ministry was about to
such consequences? (Hear, hear.) The effect of the ballot
introduce, but he must say that the first element of such would, in his opinion, be the restoration of au usurped
Caesar's."
measure ought to be the extension of the franchise, and right. Its effect would be to carry out the Christian doe-
the next the possession of the ballot for the protection of trine, " Render unto Caesar the things that are Cthe voter." Whereupon the electors and audience called I As to the ballot converting the English people into socia-
out " Three cheers for the ballot !" (Hear, hear.) Such • lists and democrats, such a notion appeared to him stark
then was the opinion of the hon. and learned gentleman, raving madness. (Cheers.) He should glance at the pro-
the first counsel in the highest court of judicature in Eng- ceedines of one election in England, and of another in Ire-
land. (Hear, hear.) fauch was also the opinion of Sir J. 1, land, for the purpose of showing that the ballot was the
'
Romilly, the present Master of the Rolls. And such the surest, the most constitutional, protection against violence
opinion of Mr. Page Wood, now Vice-Chancellor. (Hear, and corruption, and, as a remedy against intimidation, far
hear.) It was pleasant to be able to turn to Hansard for better and more constitutional than surrounding the poll-

ing booth with armed soldiers. (Hear, hear.) The'English
election which he selected as an illustration was that of
Oldham. It appeared from the report that Mr. Fox and
Mr. Heald were the candidates for th at borough ; that Mr.
Fox had a majority of the electors in his favour, and that
Mr. Heald had a majority of the ruffians. (Laughter.)
When a right good agent of the Derby or St. Alban's breed
undertook to return a candidate for a given borough, he
first of all tried the efficacy of bribery and corruption, and,
if those aids failed, he then, in the last resort, hired a snob
to thrash the unfriendly electors going to and returning
from the poll, and to smash their windows. Now there
were certain men who were so unmanly as to object to
have their bones broken, so unmanly as to object to the
upsetting of carriages, so unmanly and so un-English as to
consider the intrusion of a brick-bat on the tea-table of a
family party an unwelcome event. (Laughter.) Well, by
such aids as these the legitimate majority of Mr. Fox was
very nearly converted into a minority ; and his hon. friend
whom he was happy to see present, would no doubt bo
ready to confirm his statement, that had it not been for
the marvellous firmness of his friends he would have been
defeated ,by a minority. Nor was that case peculiar.
They had it in evidence that Clitheroe and Blackburn were
in exactly the same position as Oldham ; in short this was
the common rule of English elections. Now for this
state of things the ballot was a certain remedy. Nobody
would break a man's bones in order to persuade Mn
to vote in a particular way ; nobody would upset a
e
volct wouldcsohoi tfo rnrxetgcr
goods,
ntbalalusesolemst:nu
btigaoandrinsn:ihdoa:peiolrgniNcudlveoelme;:(nniruaosd(
(Hear,
Ogiodeaitevhh,
aposteeerrhf prevent
maintained
leaeeteniavetnltretvo tenantryt.
inea:otrti:hee;el man from voting ; nobody
In the
notlimpossiblevtthenhhxeeeaatl
tfil
pollingtrssh
catastrophe
then,tkpboel
a uclbieoitelloi
nht wn ooahgawtlsb avatttni
Irelandhhlhtdeehees.
p
the aid of the military, if the ballot were established, be-
cause these men might accept their conveyance and then
vote in their teeth. (Hear, hear.) No mob would as-
semble either to rescue a voter from a tyrant landlord, or
to ill-use him if he were an opponent, seeing that it would
be utterly impossible to know which way he was going to
vote. It was contrary to common sense to say that under
the ballot the peace of the country would be disturbed its
it had been during general elections. (Hear, hear.) He
challenged any hon. gentleman to match such places as Old-
ham and the Six-mile-bridge and Blackburn, or even Cli-
theroe, in any country where the ballot was established.
(Hear, hear.) If they questioned the Belgian, he would
tell them that, though great interest was felt in his national
elections, peace and order were the rule, and the opposite
the exception. (Hear, hear.) If they questioned the
Frenchman, he would tell them that nothing could be more
orderly than French elections—(hear)—he would tell them
that in the vicinity of the voting inns in France the trades-
men never closed their shops, that the doors were not
closed, nor the windows smashed. Perhaps the French-
man would tell them, too, that John Bull was so accus-
tomed to his national luxuries of beer, boxing, and bribery,
that he would never part with them. (Laughter.) If,
again, they questioned the American, he would tell them
that at his national elections peace was the rule, disturbance
the exception. He was afraid—he (Mr. Berkeley) did not
say it—he was afraid Jonathan would add that John Bull
would never get rid of his corrupt electoral system until he
had got rid of the corrupting influence of a hereditary peer-
age. One word, before he concluded, with regard to the
boroughs which contained dockyards. The atrocities per-
petrated in these boroughs, in the shape of punishment
and reward, were fully and fairly before the public ; and
Chatham had the unenviable notoriety of having never
returned a member contrary to the interests of the Go-
vernment of the day. (Hear, hear.) Now, the only way
in which they could prevent the electors of such boroughs
from being punished for political virtue and rewarded for
political vice, was by giving them security at the poll.
Until that was done, never would merit meet with its
desert, or the stream of patronage flow in the right chan-
nel. He should not be doing justice, however, if he admit-
ted that the dockyard voters of Chatham were more under
the influence of others than the tenant-farmers ; and he
maintained that if they attempted to disfranchise the elec-
tors of Chatham, they ought, at the same time, as a mat-
ter of justice, to disfranchise the tenant-farmers of
the county of Kent. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) It
was, then, because he objected to the exercise of this
tyranny over electors, that he entreated the house
to free the country from its pernicious consequences ;
it was because he would practically carry out the senti-
ments of the noble lord, and restore to good sense, wisdom,
and moderation the privilege of recording an unfettered
vote that he sought to protect those great qualities of the
people. (Cheers.) When they heard of democracy, he en-
treated the house to remember the conduct of the people in
1848, that memorable era, when the democracy were found
the prompt protectors of their country. (Cheers.) He
would call upon them to remember the conduct of the
people at the Great Exhibition, marked as that conduct
was by great intelligence and by the love of order—he
would call upon them not to forget the conduct of the
people at the interment of England's great captain—(hear,
hear)—marked as their conduct then was by deep reverence
and respect for the mighty dead—the aristocrat who lay in
the coffin before them ; and then he told them to get rid
of their paltry terrors and their aristocratic tromblings at
democracy. (Cheers.) He called upon that newly elected
House of Commons to stand forward and prove themselves
worthy of the people who had sent them there ; ho called
upon them to restore to the people a great privilege, a
chartered right, to which they were as much entitled as
they were to enjoy the sun that shone in God's firmament
or the breezes of spring ; and that they might do this he
entreated them most respectfully, but most earnestly, to
legislate on this subject. (Loud cheers.)
Sir J. V. SHELLEY seconded the motion. Ho said
after the speech which had just been delivered, he should
not feel justified in detaining the house at any length. If
it would be difficult to bring forward any new arguments
in favour of the ballot, it would, he thought, be still more
difficult to bring forward any new one against it. (Hear.)
The arguments in its favour had been strengthened a
hundred-fold by the decisions of the recent election com-
mittees. It was curious to reflect how much time had been
wasted in the discussion of this subject. In 1838, in intro-
ducing this subject, Mr. Grote observed that the necessity
for a remedy against bribery and intimidation was con-
teased on all sides, and on the same occasion the noble lord
the member for the city of London observed that when
all acknowledged that the evil prevailed to a great extent,
they were bound to provide a remedy. Since that time the
noble lord had often been strong enough to propose a re-
medy, but to the only remedy of which the case admitted
he had refused his assent. He did not know what remedy
the noble lord meant to propose now ; but his (Sir J. V.
Shelley's) constituents were strongly impressed with the
necessity of being allowed to give their votes by ballot.
Some of them, who lived in the fashionable parts of West-
minster, or in such streets as Regent-street, Bond-street,
and Oxford-street, had no wish to be subjected again to
the annoyance and discomfort of being visited by fine
ladies in carriages, and having the screw put upon them.
(Hear, hear.) He would be glad to learn what was the
opinion of the country gentlemen on this subject, but
he perceived that at present that party was represented
solely by the hon. member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. E.
Ball). On the occasion to which he had already alluded,
that of the debate in 1838, the hon. baronet the member
for Herts (Sir B. Lytton), in replying to the argument that
the ballot would weaken the influence of property, ob-
served that there were two kinds of influence, legitimate
influence and improper influence ; then when improper in-
fluence was being used to over-rule the conscience of the
voter, the ballot would be a protection, and place the poor
and the rich man on equal terms, but that wherever a
great proprietor was more beloved than feared, legitimate
influence could not be taken away by the ballot. He hoped
the opinion of the hon. baronet would now have due weight
with the country party, and that they would not pay
themselves the bad compliment to conclude that if the
ballot existed, the constituents would not select persons of
their class. (Hear.) At all events he should vote for the
motion with the greatest cordiality.
The question that leave be given to introduce the bill
having been put,
Mr. E. BALL opposed the motion, not believing that the
ballot would materially remove existing corruption. Ho
twice apologised for being unprepared with a speech, but he
favoured Lord J. Russell with a solution of the reform
problem, by advising him to give all the county voters
votes for the county boroughs, and all borough voters
votes for their counties, in addition to the franchise at
present respectively enjoyed by both classes. He would
let any person who might desire a county vote have it on
paying a certain price at a resister office, the money to be
divided between the elected members, and he greatly
amused the house by declaring how gladly ho would re-
ceive such money.
Mr. J. PHILLIMORE thought that the ballot would be
a specific remedy for a specific evil—intimidation. He
denied that any earthly power had a right to ask a man
why he voted in a particular way. The ballot would re-
move from a dishonest voter one motive for acting dis-
honestly, while it would protect an honest one. Needed
in England, this protection was still more needed in Ire-
land. He reminded the Government that the ballot was
part of the original Reform Bill, and was laid aside be-
cause it was thought that the extension of the franchise
would render it unnecessary, but as results had shown that
this was not the case, the remedy must now be tried, in
the absence of any better suggestion.
Mr. BRADY advocates the ballot, not as certain to cure
all the existing evils, but because the present system was
a bad one, and because a constituency of the country was
not in a position to make that house a reflex of popular
opinion. He cited cases in which tenants in Ireland
had been hardly treated on account of their political
conduct.
Mr. S. HERBERT said, in listening to the speech which
the hon. member for Bristol had addressed to the house,
he was struck by one peculiarity, namely, that differing
in thought from his previous speeches on the subject,'
there was a consciousness on his part that how-
ever plausible the theory of the ballot might be for the
purpose of redressing intimidation, it was powerless with
regard to bribery. He made his case with regard to inti-
midation by going back a very considerable period, and the
principal evidence he adduced of the evil of intimidation,
to which no man could be more opposed than he (Mr. S.
Herbert), was given before a committee which sat not in
1853 but in 1835. He accused the noble lord of having
slept the sleep of Rip Van Winkle, while the evils of inti-
midation had been in operation since the Reform Bill. He
(Mr. Berkeley) must have slept the sleep of Rip Van
Winkle, in not seeing the effect which public opinion had
had since that time in redressing the evil of intimidation.
He recollected the time when the late Duke of Newcastle
put boldly forward the theory that every man bad a right
' to do as he liked with his own," meaning that every man
had a right to do as he liked with the consciences of other
people • but now-a-days, depend on it, there was no man
alive who would come forward with such a statement or
justify such a proceeding. And what was the inference
that ho drew from that ? Why, that the state of the
public feeling was very much altered on that subject; that
a man felt he would shock public opinion and damage his
own character if he attempted to put forward such a state-
ment as that he had a right to interfere in that manner
with the franchise of his tenants. He need not give in-
stances, because hon. gentlemen must be aware of the alte-
ration which had been effected by the pressure of public
opinion on that subject. The hon. member for Cam-
bridgeshire was a proof that there, at any rate, the tenants
exercised their choice, otherwise he would not be a member
of that house ; and he saw another hon. gentleman oppo-
site, the member for Nottinghamshire, who was returned
by the tenants in the teeth of the opposition of the land-
lords.—(A Hon. Member—" Those are exceptions.")—But
many exceptions tended to invalidate a rule. He could
quote another exception—himself. In the county which
he had the honour to represent, at the election which took
place last summer, a great many of the tenantry voted
against bite, and amongst others many cf the tenantry
with whom he was connected. Many of them were
tenants-at-will, men of substance who would think it a
great piece of impertinence on the part of their landlord to
interfere with them. Well, then, the hon. gentleman
thought that bribery' was an awkward subject to deal
with, and actually apologised for it, saying, what was very
true, that it was a seductive thing, and that there[were
what he called redeeming qualities in it. [Mr. 11. Berkeley
made an observation across the table which we did not
hear.] The redeeming quality was this, that a man might

get money dishonestly provided he put it to a good pur-
pose. But was it true that intimidation was the gigantic
evil of the elective system ? He (Mr. S. Herbert) appealed
to every gentleman in the house, whether during the last
20 years intimidation had not been diminishing, and whe-
ther, unfortunately, bribery had not been increasing.
Since the Reform Bill intimidation had decreased. The
pressure of public opinion, which was much stronger
than acts of Parliament, had had its effect on intimi-
dation, but on bribery it had had as yet none. Need
he ask the house to recollect all the dreadful cases of bri-
bery they had had this session ? This blot on our electoral
system had become more prevalent, and not only candi-
dates but electors seemed to think it was one of those
offences which were venial, provided they were not found
out. The hon. gentleman opposite said they wanted the
ballot on account of its effect on Ireland, and that Ireland
was the great seat of intimidation. Now, would the ballot
in Ireland have the effect of preventing intimidation ? The
hon. member for Leominster wanted to know what it was
they objected to—bribery, intimidation, or the remedy?
He (Mr. S. Herbert) objected to all three. He objected to
bribery and intimidation, and he said the ballot was not
the remedy for them. It was impossible to suppose that
the fact of every man giving his vote in secret would
necessarily cause it to continue secret. The struggles in
Ireland were between the priest and the landlord ; the
relation of the tenant with the priest was peculiar, and
the relation with the tenant was common. Unless the
ballot enabled the tenant to be independent of both their
remedy would be useless. In England, with a tyrannical
landlord or a tyrannical customer, as the hon. gentleman
described, the ballot would lead to a system of espionage,
because, supposing the ballot turned out to be a system of
perfect secresy, then the political opinions, the political
associates of every man would be canvassed, and it would
be natural to suppose that he had voted according to his
political opinions. He was not afraid of intimidation Joe.
cause public opinion would be too strong for it, but be
asked, would the ballot be effective in putting down
bribery ? A candidate who now went down to a borough
might spend a great deal of money uselessly, but have the
ballot and it would be a question of play and pay ; the
candidate would say, " I pay if I am returned, but not if
I am not returned." At present a candidate bribed a man
and got merely his vote ; with the ballot ho made the man
who was to be bribed his agent, and he made it his inte-
rest not only to give him his vote, but to make others give
theirs ; they would canvass for him, How would this act
upon the voter ? Why, the voter, who was sometimes
now deterred by the fear of detection, would have this
mantle of darkness thrown over all his proceedings, and
might be induced to vote in a way which otherwise he
would not do. How was it that bribery was generally
found out now ? The first thing was that generally a
number of men came to the poll about ten minutes before
it closed, and gave their votes. The agent or the opposing
candidate said, "why here is so and so, who has be ,n
yellow all his life, voted for blue, or has been blue all his
life, and voted for yellow ?" Investigation ensued, and
ultimately the bribery was brouglit home to him. But
under this system of secresy the imputation of a corrupt
motive could not be suggested no one would know how
any ono had voted ; no suspicion would be awakened,
and there would be no reason for making those inves-
tigations which resulted in a committee up stairs, and
ended sometimes to the great dissatisfaction of honoura-
ble members. If that were so, they gave the candidate
the advantage without the risk of losing his money, and
they gave to the voter the possibility of voting without the
chance of detection ; and so fax from the ballot tending to
diminish the chance of bribery, it would give every in-
ducement to the candidate to bribe, and enable the voter
to be bribed without discovery. The hon. gentleman said
why not give this right to the poor man which in clubs the
higher classes habitually used. Now, one of these was for
political, and the other for social purposes. The object of
a ballot in a club was to enable them to act on predileT

tions which they might not be able to justify, but which
they had a right to exercise, for this reason—that every-
body had a right to choose the persons that he would asso-
ciate with. A man had a right to select his associates,
without giving any public reason, and without being called
on to give any justification for the aversion or prejudice he
entertained. But in public functions a man must feel his
responsibility. It was nothing to tell him there was no
responsibility in giving a vote. Why, to vote for a mem-
ber of Parliament was to constitute the fountain head of
of political power. Talk about the rights of the demo-
cracy. These wore the duties of the democracy as well as
the rights; and if the voters were to exercise the franchise,
they must exercise it for the benefit of the public under
the responsibility of public opinion. There was no reason
in,the world why they should adopt the theory of the hon.
gentleman; but it was because the franchise was a public
trust, and the source of public power, that he desired to
see that it did not tend to vitiate our public system. The
hob. gentleman said that some persons confounded demo-
crexy with the ballot, and that it was said you could not
hr4ve the one without the other. It was true that if you
rlthe ballot, one great argument against universal suff-
e was lost. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman quoted
the case of foreign countries, and said they were arguments
arid proofs in favour of the manner in which the ballot
would work in this country. He need not have gone so
far. That system was not confined to clubs—it was
adopted in the parish of Marylebone in the election of
vestries under Hobhouse's Act. Elections of that kind in
Marylebone differed in nothing from ordinary political
elections, and were carried on with the same vehemence,
the same acrimony, and party spirit; and there was an
entire openness of proceeding, everybody's vote was well
known, and if any one was persecuted, or any custom lost,
they were acted on in just the same way as if there were
open voting. Then with regard to America, Mr. Tremen-
heero, in his work on America, gave up the notion of
secresy in vote by ballot ; and said that the mode of
taking votes in the United States was open and ostenta-
tious ; that the ballot was a good mode of taking rapidly
anal easily the votes of a vast population ' • but any no-
tion of secresy was quite given up, and no attempt
was made at concealment of the political predilections
of voters. He said that "the term ballot in the United
States meant nothing more than a mode of taking votes,
which were openly and ostentatiously given." Now, in
this country there were scrutineers for the purpose of
striking off bad votes, such as the persons who voted
had no right to give. Under the ballot how could that be
done, how could it be ascertained who had or who had not
a right to vote ? That system must be put out of the
question. Look at the working of that plan in that re-
spect in America. It was stated by a writer on the subject,
" that there were many false votes given, and in the case
of a candidate who had obtained the promise of the votes
of half the constituency he was yet beaten by a majority
greater than the whole constituency put together." (Hear.)
Again, it appeared from the evidence of an American that
the system had only changed tho course of corruption, and
instead of buying hundreds of
_voters, the plan was (and

this was an iniprCivement he, Mr. Herbert, did not think
we in this country would adopt immediately, for it would
require a little time for ingenious men to invent devices of
the kind)—the plan was only to buy one or two of the
judges with whom the result of the election rested ; and
there was no means of detecting them in making false that
which could only be done by a scrutiny of the ballot box ;
and there was nothing to prevent the abstraction of one
kind of tickets and the substitution of others. That then
seemed to be the common practice, and that was the sys-
tem which was said afforded the greatest security to voting.
Hq would read an extract from the message of the Gover-
nor of the Stitte of New York to the Legislature, in 1850,
in which he said that" the alarming increase of bribery at
elections was a subject worthy of their attention ; that the
preservation of their liberties depended on the purity of
elective franchise as exercised by the citizens, and he
tr4sted they would adopt measures to protect whom--the
voters ? not at all ; but effectually to secure the ballot-box
from corruption—so that after adopting the system in this
country the hon. gentleman the member for Bristol would
have to bring on motions not to protect the voter, but the
ballot-box, which he himself bad introduced. His (Mr.
Hcirbert's impression was, that there was one state in the
Union in which there was compulsory secresy in voting.
In the United States the ballot was used as a means of
rapid voting, but the system of compulsory secresy was so
far from being universally adopted that it was, in most
cases, considered hateful, and strong arguments were used
against its introduction into the other states. The hon.
gentleman said that he would have it compulsory. But
how was he to do it ? How was he to compel secresy
among men proud of their resistance to power and to the
blandishments of authority ; how was he to prevent them
from going up to the ballot-box and stating for whom
they were going to vote. It was not in the nature of the
English character for a man to skulk behind a mask when
he was doing an act of which he was proud. (Hear, hear.)
Sydney Smith, in his admirable pamphlet on the ballot,
which he (Mr. Herbert) wished it was consistent with
the rules of the hou,se to have read by the clerk at the
table—(a laugh)—for it would be better than any
speeches or arguments, humorously asked how you were
to get an English voter to conceal his opinions ; in
that case he must hurrah at the wrong dinner, drink

the wrong beer, and break the wrong head. The hen
gentleman (Mr. Berkeley) said that the English were not
garrulous ; but were they apt at concealing acts of public
duty ? He (Mr. Herbert) would say, being half an Irish-
man, that although on the other side of the Channel taci-
turnity was not their forte, it was possible they would not
divulge the nature of their votes. But for an Englishman
to acquire the powers of concealment necessary to this sys-
tem of voting, he could become such a hypocrite as to make
it doubtful whether he would be entitled to exercise the
franchise. It could not be kept out of sight what an effect
would be wrought on the national character and .institu-
tions if this system of perfect secresy was obtained. How
was public opinion to be formed among the constituencies
if every mans opinion was concealed ? It 'would go to the
root of our whole political system. The case was different
in France, although he preferred to take America for the
purposes of comparison, because the people came from the
same stock, and the operation of certain influencies on
them would be more akin to that on the minds of English-
men. But in France the political system was exactly the
opposite of ours. It was a common phrase among French-
men, faut &rase,. l'individuel." That was not our s 3 s-
tern ; and we did not put our political system into a state
shape. If that was abandoned it would be contrary to the
spirit of our free institutions—contrary to the spirit of our
Saxon institutions, which were so consonant with liberty ;
and if we were to adapt the English character to a system
which would render men ready so to abrogate their rights
and their duties es to perform them under the veil of secresy,
you would demoralise the English character, and sap the
very foundation on which our liberties were built. He
did not speak thus from any fear of the immediate effect of
the ballot in the loss of the influence of wealth, of public
virtue, or station. He believed that it would make no very
sensible impression on the return of members. He did
not object to the system in a party or political point of
view, but because he believed it would tend, by destroy-
ing the self-respect of the constituency, to strike a blow at
one of the best qualities of the national character, which
was created by the exercise of public functions, whether in
high or in humble life, and which required a fearlessness
which had been given to the national character—a stability
which was inconsistent with a system of concealment.
Actuated by these feelings he should vote against the in-
troduction of the measure.
Lord A. LENNOX opposed the .principle of the ballot,
denying that secresy would be preserved under such a sys-
tem. He denied that it would put a stop to bribery, and
although he was of opinion that the bribery at the last
election was a scandal to the country, and he would be ready
to coincide iu any measure that would put a stop to it,
yet he did not believe that the ballot would have that effect.
An ancestor of his, whom the noble lord opposite, in a re-
cent work, had called "The reformed Duke of Richmond,"
had expressed an opinion which he thought was well de-
serving of attention. He said that the idea of the ballot
could only have arisen from a wish to avoid some improper
influences ; and he conceived that it was much nobler
openly to check such influences than to seek to evade them
by concealment and deceit—it was more consistent with the
character of Englishmen openly to express their opinions
than to indicate in a secret manner those whom they
wished to entrust with their suffrages. (Cheers.) There
was, in fact, about Englishmen an open and straightfor-
ward character well suited to the dignity of freedom ; and
it would be most unwise and dangerous to public morality
to pass a law, the essence of which was meanness anti. ser-
vility, and whieliwould inculcate a disregard for truth, or,