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

their
speeches, and to see the
contrast between them and
the miserable futile break-down arguments of Cabinet
.misters. (Hear hear.) But he felt bound to meet the
Mostst objections on record to the principle of vote by ballot.
mie members of the present cabinet seemed but too glad to
hcreep under the gaberdine of the Times for shelter. The
ot, said the Times, was a question not of philosophy
tothe fact. It would not prove an efficient protection
voter, because in these days every man's opinions
were known. He (Mr. Berkeley) • would admit that the
question was one of fact and not of
philosophy. But on
whose side was the fact, and on whose side was the phi-
the PhY, or rather the sophistry ? (Hear, hear.) " Does
inn ballot (it is asked) prevent a man's opinions from being
?' The concealment of a man's opinions depended
ballot prevented
but the main and material fact was, that the
festld Prevented the man's vote from being known.
V`Pers.) He was speaking in the presence of an assembly
'et protected themselves from the Sir Lucius O'Triggers
to
society by means of the ballot, and he put it to them
if the ballot did not enable them to conceal their
W4-es, and, if they wished it, their opinions also ? (Hear,
ea_s: .) Well, but the Sir Lucius O'Triggers of polities
:17 more dangerous than the Sir Lucius O'Triggers of
hay ; and was it fair or just, he would ask, in them.
rntheir broad acres and their broad cloth, to seek to
eeal their votes and opinions by means of the ballot and
(my the same protection to men who wore fustian and
answer
who were tenants-at-will? (Hear, hear.) Would they
but newer that question ? (Hear.) He often put it before,
he never yet got an answer. (Hear.) But he denied
tboai,.mere matter of fact, that the electors could not conceal
(Rel.°Pillions, and that they must necessarily be known.
.) It was said that the poor electors were too garru-
Olal, and that their opinions must be known. Why there witeesroe hundreds of thousands of poor persons in this country
asioaciated together who (lid keep their secrets inviolate.
r' heat) He was, himself, a member of the Foresters
l!nd Odd Fellows Secieties—(laughter)—and he had no
bt many of the members around him were in the same
position. (Rear, hear.) He knew there was a vast number
31. Odd Fellows in the House ofCommons. (Muchlaughter.)
beeew he never knew that the secrets of these societies had
rts n betrayed either from garrulity, or drink, or any
isplaced confidence in woman. (Laughter.) He had
heard the
wives of Freemasons' declare that there could be
t 6 ° secret in freemasonry, because if there was they would
frSur„ unee to get it out of them in their soft hours. So much
be el habits of the pele. (Laughter and
ers a genera
-.Le had been challenged to
"`
to deal with facts, and
Onini"' now produce evidence to show that the political
th ells of the electors were not generally known. In
men days and under the present electoral system, poor
they no more dared to assert their political opinions than
Th dared to give their votes contrary to the wishes of
political
landlords. The tenants-at-will, it was said, had. no
of sherdj opinions of their own. They had political opinions
The • °Nvn, but they dared not express them. (Hear.)
but they
of this country likewise had their opinions,
"ue,Y were obliged to conceal them or their bread would
be end (Cheers.) He was sorry to detain the
tOT so 'Ong, but on this point he begged their attention
rnii.",".o evidence of Mr. James Mather, given before a corn-
1t...„""e in 1835 : " You have been a land surveyor ?—I
shire In what counties ?—Brecknock, Shropshire, York-
me , Oxfordshire, Middlesex ; but my business has called
tos many other parts of England. You have had an
:13torsustity of meowing
the opinions of farmers on most
• ?---My business has led me among that
thei• of Men. I wish you to confineyourself entirely to
si„sr Political relations with their landlords, and with a
te'vr t° that part of the subject I ask, among what class of
.49'orits do You believe most independence is to be found ?
d usbnag those who have a leasehold tenure ; but their in-
Ik-"ence is very much governed by circumstances.
84
et circumstances?—The length of the lease, for in-
iest e• I have always remarked that farmers are more
llesi to assert their political opinions at the commence-
prent of their tenure than at its conclusion. (Cheers.) I
littf:reo_nygou mean in cases where they disagree in politics
With their landlords 7—Yes ; and especially if the landlord
politician. There are some landlords who do
• niaterfere. Is that, in your opinion, a large class ?—No,
bis.swue e'llatrary for if thelandlord have no strong political
-his own, in nine cases out of ten he interferes with
‘entry fom the instigation of some neighbour wbo
win- between
Yourconsider that politics are liable to breed ill-
th etween landlord and tenant 7—l do, especially when
e tenants have leases. How 9 Where they are tenants-
asat-7111 ?-----Much less .
because.tenants-at-will have no will
.ss sal' as politics are acooncerned ; they know they must vote
7t., their landlords please, and make up their minds to do so.
iZear.) Are there not exceptions to the rule ?—There may
hut you will find them veryrare. Have you found, gene-
Y, that will
are contented to be thus go-
tha-riltesl have observed that the most intelligent among
rass,s'ass, consequently the best agriculturists are by no
th --'4l contented ; but they cannot help themselves ; while
"e h • •
isai en, w ose families have held their farms without
sN disturbed from generation to generation, are just as
n 7.!. satisfied to pay their votes to their landlords as their
rents, and consider it much the same thing. Do you Gen-
ial ser this class of men less intelligent ?—I do. These are
tell same sort of men who oppose all improvements, and
thin3'l3n that their fathers did so before them, and that
the tenet on as well then as they do now. Do you think
bansssnry of the country generally would like to vote by
ths"--A vast majority would ; but there are a class of
th ""' w, I have no doubt, would have as much horror of
a ballotho as I have known them profess for subsoil, dram-
t, and the drill plough. You have said that you think
yr: Majority of farmers would prefer the ballot, how don
presencellount for the fact that fewer petitions have
Commons
the by that class of men to the House of
n3e
Ns? arlY other in favour of it ?—The reason appears to
11,,-;11• When you say farmer's, I take it for granted you
morn. teaants-at-will. Well, thes!,. a no
e dare sign a petition on a political
.sulbjecttenant-at-will than he
thre vote ithout the concurrence of his andlord a_nd
re; ballot iws
more dreaded by landlords than anyother
°l-111 whatever. Then you think tenants-at-will dare
hul% pterta: any. political opinions ?—I do not say that ;
d say that they dare not express them. If a tenant-
apo-1iw,1.11-'i'vesrae- to express opinions hostile to those of a strong
fay tenant-
lit landlord—for instance, if he were known to be
a tellrable to the ballot, he would be treated as he treats
ainted sheep, and be drafted from the flock." (Cheers?)
thetblieY turned over the 900 pages of evidence contained in
te-Huuck from which he quoted, they would find, by the
kB-111°nY of Mr. Wilcox and Mr. Fitzgerald, both of them
kagistrates, and of the late Col. Bruen, who had been a
4Zeleber of that house, that the electors of Ireland dared
:1.61 re to express their political opinions than the tenants-
Was in England. (Hear, hear.) The only difference
vot, that the Irish landlords did not disguise or. mince the
er, but openly proclaimed their right to command the
that °f their tenants. (Hear) And he would show that
lkeeethig was as rampant now in Ireland as it was in
to He would show that coercion of the voter existed
1/4'41 extent which was scarcely credible. (Hear, hear.)
ss, was the case of Mr. Henry De Burgh, a landlprd
to sssile county of Monaghan. Mr. De Burgh rites
ea "a° editor of the Daily Express as follows :-
4P, St. Doulough's, Raheny, August 17, 1852.—Sir,
PouraPs you will make use of the inclosed Genes-
is a teftee to snit the purposes of the day. John Murphy.
aßbahellant on the lands of Skeborn, in the county of Aron
dire asked him for his vote. He voted against me.
laatl;e7, d the sub-agent, Mr. Johnson, to enforce all rent
slue and payable, without pressure or hardship.
le rte the letter No. 1 • this morning I received from
;13a3r the letter No. 2 ; wrote my reply No. 3. You
you „Take what editorial use of the subject and le ter-
afar, Tate. If the landlords of the country (i.e., the Con
be aelive,) would all do likewise, the priests would. soon
seal, llsidered. by their own flocks as the political
---j`l3lrea theyunquestionably are.—HENRY DR BURGH.".
have ati" Monaghan, August 5, 1852. Sir, —I
paid
iris day received instructions from Mr. De Burgh,
raideao„- cm You for all rent and arrears of rent to be
take Your holdings up to May, 1852, otherwise to
so -se necessary proceedings for the recovery of it.—
l.sa.r,„,()bedient, JOHN JOHNSON.—Mr. John Murphy.—
Aug-l'iis must be settled next week, J. J."—" Skeborn,
N. a ' 1852.—Mr. De Burgh,—Sir,—lnclosed I send
bea,
„I,lote I got from Mr. Johnson, which will, I hope,
)1A- Ares excuse for troubling you. I hope, sir, you will
whalsrsevere at this unusual season to press for rent.
°lit ars' Would be able to accomplish in two months, with-
for 11510 any injury, would be a heavy loss to press
svouir, as I have grass taken for two of my cows. I
Month cc as
lose their benefit for the three best
summer,' as butter is 3d. per pound better now than in
fot;111-• will be able to pay you in October all demands.
dalg noise, respected sir, you will be so kind and in-
l'raYef; as to grant the time I have requested, and I will
Paid "r Your welfare. I have to remark I have all rent
4041411 P to as
MT, --saY, 1851.—1 am, your respected servant,
sue
Sir,—lf7lll'llir. you favour me with a reply,
sue rss sn care Mr. ohn Leghorn, Clones.'" This was
4aa-esPeeted me--ster's Yours•.—" St. Dunlough's Raheny,
heriss" 16, 1852.- Sir, of the 10th was forwarded
jaatre 4.11, r• Johnson has acted strictly according to his
`1)..1 ys>,4°llB. You refused your landlord the compliment
tureen vote. Be it so. Let there be no compliment
the /18' -Vote as you please ; but pay up your rents
No doubt"a they are usually payable, or I shall make you.
laronrhut your political supporters will grant you the
reLt d I refuse and enable you to pay your year's
sersanate .sson the fat day of May, 1852.—Your obedient
Wglee AkENRY DE BURGH.—Mr. John Murphy, Scarvy,
etter Then he thought Murphy would have been the
visshatrlifstt.she ballot. (Loud clieeis.) He thought after
ja.uha, th-e•zurmoted, they might come to the conclusion
t as it smin of the tenant voter was as great in Irew-
irenty.ono was in England. (Hear, hear.) It was noa
Ord
?;ears since the noble lord made.a speech_ t
'dais subject and he hoped some friend might
ionrlttne the noble lord abide,tyoestl.ftpcboyratheattostpenealh. The noble
t,itr!itll7.
abefalliollpoattif.sc
hwouldGa
,elve.ran,ge,d at elect
rbeea,t a I re- hend the inconvenience
this that I must
pleasure, or see the e tr of Eng-
ions contrary to the feelings of them-
lisoib:s-p,ins.itseto,uald have no doubt ; I should a once re,n,ounce
I lordand at once adopt the vote by ballot The
AO doubt, passed much of his time in the
itatotne hYelTsnsion of his brother, the Duke of Bedford, of
spy
tenant forever heard it insinuated that he ever punished
voss any vote he ave or that ho ever intimidated
-Gr from voting against him. (Cheers.) Cense-
earl Y' the noble lobrdmiht have. some excuse at that
3' Period for thinking that the tenants would not be
len:(1 at cti
ele -
ons contrary to their feelings. But he
Must ial)Pose that the noble lord, like Rip Van Winkle,
tyiasnosevethsletpt,2o years, if he was not cognisant of all the
since • a had been thundered into their ears ever
at.wif, and if he did not see and admit that the tenants-
under their separate leaders, and led
eekssaoitu'ravto their own opinions and the good of the
ranagseart not notorious that the electors of the
tirls:iaB.lllial:eit:ee:te:at.;e7voted for Whig or Tory as it changed into the
alas landlords of these respective opinions ? (Hear.)
that proved in evidence, and Mr. Ward clearly showed
iss e Grid:sad was so. (Hear, hear.) Who could be deaf to tonafTe in the case of the South Notts election, where
1.1,414, nor'bo s were led up to vote like so many vermin ?
ue deaf ts) Was the noble lord deaf to all this ? Was
upon the" the state of things now existing ? He called
roared, noble lord, as an honeet man, to deny, if he nichconviction of the truth of the representation
If heave of the existing state of things. (Hear,
h*
la pled Could not, he called on the noble lord to fulfil
vote byge, and to vote for the ballot. It was said that the
Slobs ballot w
't „," Could tbs, a' a measure of democratic tendency.
°l-as to the be so, when the noble lord told them tt
the
,0 geed sense, the moderation, and the wisdom.
at,l!etniuti:;nnto"?l,(eitiah?naarott,toblifee
they owed the continuance of their con-
mere in the b
converting What loyal,prete ruwiasteu,raanldPamwoedrerawates
priviie" mcrats, socialists, and republicans ? Was
p1,1:11 conziecZ:cf_ifiving au unfettered vote fraught with
tut,: Its effect would
• 111(1, s u ? (Hear, hear.) The effect of the ballot
right n "18 °Pinio bebe
tteheearierysteereattiotbne ofa
onvertin
to Cmsar the things that are Caesar's."
144° ballort c rains tiao usurped
d oc-
r • achede
nl:eviao.g rnanneocuratkrch g the English people into socia-
a notion appeared. to him stark
landings of o rs*) lie should glance at the pro-
ant. , for then election,.in England, and of another in Ire-
anseat, the ii,tialtrP°se °I showing that the ballot was the
connitubonal than surrounding
teiti,_cGrrution,
acnor
aeitutional, protection against violence
Ana moors .. Yainedy against intimidation far
the Polls

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 the,t borough ; that Mr.
Fc - had a majority of the electors in his favour, and that
M Heald had a majority of the ruffians. (Laughter.)
IVLen 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, ho then, in the last resort, hired a mob
to thrash the unfriendly electors going to and returning
fror4 the poll, and to smash their windows. Now there
wet. 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-ie 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 be
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 bi n
to vote in a particular way ; nobody would upset a
carriage in order to prevent a man from voting ; nobody
would smash windows if it were impossible to tell bow the
vote was given ; and he maintained that the ballot was the
constitutional mode of election. Well, then, in Ireland
the ballot would have prevented the catastrophe at the
Six-mile-bridge. (Hear, hear.) In the first place, no land-
lords would pile up their tenantry on cars like living bales
of goods, and consign them to the next polling booth with
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 as
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 sm., shed. 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 oesuch 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 tremblings 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 ; he 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. He 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 rt. (Hear.)
The arguments in its favour had been strengthened a
hundred-fold by the decisions of the recent election corn-
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-
fessed 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 Herta (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. He
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 register office, the money to be
divided between the elected members, and he greatly
amused the house by declaring how gladly he 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
liked • h his meaning that every man
'todo as hewith own,"
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
proceeding. And what was the inference
from that ? Why, that the state of the
jtrattifyliesudcrhewa
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 him, 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 thereiw ere
what he called redeeming qualities in it. [Mr. H. 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 continuo 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;) t
political opinions. He was not afraid of intimidation ls*-
cause public opinion would be too strong for it, but he
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
lam not returned." At present a candidate bribed a man
and got merely his vote ; with the ballot he 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 been
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 brought 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 one 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 far 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 predilec-
tions which they might not be able to justify, but which
they had a right to exorcise, 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 prejuditie 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 were 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
lion. gentleman said that some persons confounded demo-
cracy with the ballot, and that it was said you could not
have the one without the other. It was true that if you
had the ballot, one great argument against universal suff-
rage was lost. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman quoted
the case of foreign countries, and said they were arguments
and 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 Hobhonse'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-
heere, 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
and 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 ho 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 the course of corruption, and
instead of buying hundreds of voters, the plan was (and
this was an improvement 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 deiices 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
hich 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.
He would read an extract from the message of the Gover-
nor of the State 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
trusted 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 had introduced. His (Mr.
Herbert'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 house 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 hon.
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 man's 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, "it faut ecrascr l'inclividuel." That was not our 113 a-
tom ; 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 as 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 ptirty 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 ho was of opinion that the bribery at the last
election was a scandal to the country, and he would be ready
to coincide in 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
ward character well suited to the dignity of freedom ;
was, in fact, about Englishmen an open and straightfor-
and
it would l e most unwise and dangerous to public morality
to pass a law, the essence of which was meanness and ser-
vility, and which would inculcate a disregard for truth, or,

.v.ll/4,