The Sun.
London, England, 1854-06-14 00:00:00

(gear,) He know that his hon. friend below him (Sir J.
-Sheilea-) not loUg since got into sad disgrace for using the
-word " sham." Awed by that example, ho (Lord D.
Stuart) would be more cautious—(laughter)—but he yet
would venture to say that he could not understand how
any Government, earnest in the cause of reform, could say
'one word against the ballot. (Hear, hear.) Since the
motion was last discussed in the house he had taken the
opportunity of speaking to several Americans upon the
subject, and amongst others, to the late American Minister
at this Court, a most distinguished and able man. (Hear.)
The reply of the. American Minister to his inquiries was
thise-that although there might be different grades of opi-
nion in the United States on the subject of the ballot, yet
he believed that if it were proposed to abolish it, every
American would refuse to be a party to such a measnre.
(Hear.) He thought as all former means of staying cor-
ruption and intimidation had failed, it was only just to
the country and to the house to give the ballot a trial. It
was endeavoured to set people against it by crying it down
as nn-English. He would not pretend to say whether it
was English or not, but he certainly thought the practice
• was a most " gentlemanly" one. (Hear, hear, and a
• laugh.) Whenever any set of gentlemen were called upon•
.to vote they invariably used the ballot. (Hear, hear.)
-Since last year a striking instance of this had occurred in
• the Christ Church School election. There the candi-
dates were persons occupying the most dignified
nposi-
tions—the one the chief maeistrate of the city of London
and the other a prince of royal blood. Did h
• governors of the charity vote openly? Of course not,
the un-English, but nevertheless, almost universal,
There
practice ofthe ballot prevailed. (
' was a passage in the address of Lon
and hence
electors of the city of London which s'Elihojeasovbrienlllt!htla:trsst-e)hlel to
enothhlee
- lord still remained an opponent of the
to 'be looked for on
the opposition of the Government
' the present occasion. The noble lworadostbgio.aysetnedoptehnalty.theoref
there was no vote which he had n
, course that must be so while the ballot was nothow ethveer quitelawof
was the country. He (Lord D. Stuart) not
• without a hope that the noble lord .
a 3 waswould
not far distantyet have to give
whengive
a secret vote, for he trusted the d
the House- of Commons would
r agree with him in
thinking that the ballot was the only way in which the
• voice of the people of this country could be fairly and
- freely heard. (Cheers.)
• Mr. WARNER (whose observations were almost totally
inaudible in she calls for a division) considered the ballot
• afforded the only means of putting an end to the wide-
spread and diegracefal corruption which prevailed amongst
the electors'of this country.
Lord PALM.ERSTON.—Notwithstanding the impati•
ence of the house (a laugh), especially in reference to a
subject which has been so frequently discussed, I trust I
may be permitted to state in a few words the grounds on
which I intend to give my vote against the motion of my
• hon. friend. lam not at all insensible to the advantage
which would accrue from any system which would create
an effectual remedy against intimidation and bribery, or
against the exercise of undue influence over the electors.
. But, in the first place, my opinion is—and I must say,
that it is an opinion not lightly formed, but of long stand-
ing—that the ballot, which is proposed by my hon. friend
9.8 a remedy, would utterly fail in accomplishing that se-
crecy upon which is founded all the results which he pro-
' poses to effect. No man can persuade me in this country
that you earl devise any means by which the people of this
country will keep to themselves the political opinions
• which they. profess—that men would not tell to their
- friends and companions the political opinions by which
- they are Animated, the preference which they have for
particular candidates ; and that on the day of election it
would not be known as well with the ballot as with open
, voting the way in which the great majority of the electors
had given their suffrages. (Hear, hear.) I say there is
no mechanical contrivance, no legislative enactment which
Parliament can devise which would prevent the opinions
and votes of the great majority of electors from being
known under the ballot as under the present system
of open voting. We have been told a great deal about
the example of other countries. Ask any citizen of
the United States whether the ballot does produce
. that secrecy which we are told is the essential
foundation of all security. It is perfectly well known
that it accomplishes no such result—that the votes of men
at elections in the United States are as well known, and
as ostentatiously avowed, as in any part of the United
Kingdom—that Men go to the poll with the ballot-ticket
in their hats, and with coloured papers indicating the par-
ticular candidate for whom they are going to vote. They
. have the same blood in their veins which flows in ours.
They are. too honest and too manly not to avow their opi-
nions—(hear, bear)—and to support the candidate with
whom they have identified themselves. Away, then, with
the nonsense—away with the delusion which prevails in
the public mind, and which is utterly inconsistent with all
• known facts anti all previous inferences—(hear, hear)—for
the great bulk of the electors there would be no secrecy—
they would scorn it. (Hear, hear.) It would be repug-
nant to their personal feelings, and at variance with their
political predilections. With some, no doubt, it might be
secret. The shopkeeper, the tenant, or a few individuals
-who are under the apprehension that their vote would be
productive of some injury to their own condition and for-
tune and tliopes—these might take care in giving their
• votes that there should be no knowledge of who the person
-was to whom their vote was given. But what must be
the condition of that man daring the interval between the
commencement of the canvass and the giving of the vote?
Would the ballot prevent him from being solicited by the
person who has influence over him to extort from him a
promise to give his vote? (Hear, hear.) It does not follow
that because a vote is to be given by a twisted piece of
paper, put in a hole, that a man who thinks ho can com-
mand the vote will not use that screw which my hon.
friend has dilated upon to obtain a promise from him.
The promise may be given or withheld ; if it is given, and
. a man votes according to his promise, of what use is the
ballot? If he gives a promise, and breaks it afterwards,
what then becomes of your argument as to the improve-
' anent of the people? (Hear, hear.) You are, in fact, de-
moralising the people, instead of raising them in the scale
of moral and civilised men. (Hear, hear.) If ho refuses,
why should he refuse except he means to vote the other
way. No man will persuade me that the pet son who has
power over an elector will not act towards him exactly as
he does at present, if the elector has given a vote against the
wishes of his controlling superior. The ballot in either
case would be a perfect nullity for secrecy or for protection.
• The first objection to the ballot is that it would not ac-
complish the purposes for which those who propose it put
it forward for the acceptance of Parliament. I object
to it because it would not succeed In the next place,
I object to it because it might succeed—(hear, hear)
and laughter.) The objection made to the Pretender was,
• that ho was not the son of James. And then, when the
friend to whom such an objection was wade said, "How
can you be so-illiberal and unreasonable as to give currency
to such a report ?" the other replied, " I object because he
.is the son of James." (Hear, hear.) Now I object to the
ballot if itevere to succeed, because I think secrecy in a
matter such as that of voting for members of Parliament
would. be an entire change in the social habits of the people.
I think that you cannot debar them from those manifesta-
tions of their,palitical predilections and antipathies which
are vital elementanithe British constitution. I think to
compel mankind to hold within their own bosom all
political preferences and opinions would I,e a great national
calamity. I think, if you succeed in making the ballot
entirely secret, and that the result would be only known
by a majority of votes on the poll, you would lose a great
element of political virtue. Now, sir, there is anotherob-
jection which I have to the ballot'. I think, if it succeeded
in accomplishing the purpose for which it was proposed,
the ballot would be a great evil as bearing on the political
organisation of this country. r think that upon principle
as well as theory, that it is an error. The vote given at au
election is, I intact contend, a trust exercised by tbeelector
for the benefit of the country at large. It is a trust not
only within the limited range to which the vote extends ;
but, even if that measure were carried, which I say is a mis-
nomer—if universal suffrage were carried—if everyman of a
certain age were to vote, still I should say that it is a trust.
If every wan, woman, and child had the right of voting,
still it would be a trust which each individual would exer-
cise for the benefit of the nation at large. I hold that, cc-
• conling to the spirit of the British constitution, every man
who possess political rights and performs a political duty
ought to exercise that right and perform that duty openly
in the face of of his fellow-men. (Hear, hear.) My hon.
friend quoted a passage from a work of ahighly respectable
individual, Mr. Grote, to show that these objections were
founded upon a fallacy. With all due deference, I must
.say that I never heard a passage containing more fallacies
than that which my hon. friend has quoted. I think it is
a play upon words, and not an argument addressed to
the reason. I say it is a trust which every elector has
to perform when he votes for a representative to sit in
this house. And it appears to me to be most essential
that every man who has a political function to discharge
and a political act to do, should discharge those func-
lions and peiform that act subject to the responsibility
attaching to them. But I am told that there is no re-
nponsibility. Well, then, who is to julge ? Are the
Tories to condemn the Whigs, and the Whigs the Tories ?
I say there is a responsibility, and which every man of
sense understands--namely, to public opinion—to the good
-opinion of his neighbours, and of those with whom he
'commonly seta, whose opinions he values, and which ex-
ercises a great and governing influence on the mind of
every honest man. And I- do not wish to deprive any
person of that rudder 'to keep him in the right course. If
secret voting could, be so arranged that all the voters could
vote at-elections without any man knowing how they
voted, I say then that yon would lose an inestimable ad-
vantage in keeping alive those feelings of political right
and wrong which I think are so essential to the well-being
. m.,rrtetisper,ityyoof the country. On what ground is all
You say every man should be protected in
the exercise of his
litical eight that he ira,,ee.t I say that if a man has a po-
i' atiley
vaii..„,ee.u.Venioeian.ene,that ought
mighto amriskeef
itsreopmhi s minddischarge.
0 suffer
in
secret,
„to, that you enable a voter to give his vote
Aminot 'limbers of this house give their
votes in secret?
voting amongst the l -so it isin all countries wheresecret
s so. And in
many countries
is established. In France it
wherei there is given to the
electore what is euppeeetntriseoB
voting, the sante secrecy of yot)e the
protection of secret
3f ing is observed in the legis-
lative'bodics themselves.
it also in-thejusticeoter requires it in the one
le
ease, it require,s
nembers of this
house' are interested equally in
;their functidhs have an equal bearing political
uti,,,tiopernivti:leegge%aernadl .
,welrfetil interests of the country. Why,
f 1 . ,n, should not
will tell ate
• C:6oll3nsecli.nenti.:ll(srteeo'nevmicnitioinng, wttitthlotenbt best
taro of 'tllliej °can't- seeg and
s
14-j himself, as well as the electohr? No inan
~,,,meee of this house w o has a proper feeling ,f
03,t. a. '''''' - 1I- ot think it a great grievance to
.1,
just be ou,..ei,
the V l " much
4 incurred ( isp assure of his
As to the
at the next electton for tbe-Totes he has given
as the titideeman who ha
argument of
elector from acts of this sort, a° far
custolar or his landlord. (Hear.)
injuly resulting- to the
believe
such a case to be grossly
, - es I
piny knowledge g°
exaggerated. I. believe in many cases in which tradesmen
" profess fob.) the victims of their votes that they are men
Whose" fortunes have been
v.'
au,' that they place upon thtelairal‘ -eg
votes
before—(laughter)—
Les that which should
'pore
properly be placed at the
door
of their own impru
' dance. In general I think that what
and that the accounts
a man loses from his
h I admit there
bpponent.4 lie gains &ern his friends,
are fairly bafenced between both. Al
yet I think that,
may be cases in which abuses
prevail, deal assure
thong
clamour
taken in the aggregate, there is a great d .
niado shout them thee there is real form ationfor. e
oil t But.
not td detain tbe house any longer—l have stated th
line of my objections to the ballot. My
to TO'
Gana are these—that it would not prove effective pt..
objections to the
duce secrecy- that it would not protect the voter from h
oonsequencts of his political bias ; and even if it did pro-
duce secrecy, I think that it would thereby inflict a great
injury upon the British constitution. (Hear, hear.)
Sir .T.• WALIISLEY regretted that the instances of in-
timidation quoted by his hon. friend who made this mo-
., e i_s2n had had no effect upon the noble lord. It might be very
le 11 for the noble lord and those who were in an indepeul
—1 yilerttersition to contend in favour of open voting, but
! that, stem had proved most oppressive to the poor man.
, , - • u eeespliniversally felt that the ballot should accompany
eee
c' ' . tee l au, theetaion of the franchise, and that any extension of
ee...t.'el e''' Tie esefehesa without the ballot would be mere' mockery:
ee .' i' ' ' 'bill,- therefore, would be satisfactory withoui
',f,
1r -'
~._.
'" ri j--- •
r - .- -*•••-i 1 r
id\ a *!.., N i +V-
,•