The Sun.
London, England, 1836-06-24 00:00:00

T IIE StrN , LON : k.: 14
lb E2A' 1, ).

qukries werc direete.il to
'such casks. Upon that it wlit 'o,eitticd that the ,C9r4rmtt9g
should re assemble fr%rofthe..Al,lo',Pg
required. When this Commiteee iliV.7.tt..c.te to
the resolution that tho"s'e;oitly sh'6lllA atVeqt'. 'who had voted the
preamble not pea`ve.d.. V/ere but ;ew of the Committee
who calm: to that VOle. His motion now was that tile Com-
mittee should assemble again for tho purpose of ew.sidering
the preamble.
7,1 r. NVA S"'.

...A contended that as there was no question
-.c of tn.n-its, his lion. Friend was completely shut out of
Court.

Sir J. GRAHAM concurred in the Report of the Commit-
tee, and voted on the resolution, but yet he was disposed to
support the motion of the Hon. Member for Middlesex.• Had
he been present in the Committee at the time he would have
rotes ett. preamble net proved.
After a few words from Mr. P. THOMSON and Mr. WAsoN,
the gallery was cleared for a division ; but none took place,
anl the motion was ultimately agreed to.
Mr. GULLY rose, in consequence of a statement which
had gone forth to the public, in which he had been misrepre-
sented, and which had appeared in the Times and 66 Morn-
ing Herald. It was stated by those papers, in reporting some
observations which fell from him (Mr. Gully) on a former
evening, that he had, in answer to the Hon. Member for-Brad-
fora, stated that he (Mr. Gully) had not paid head-money, or
been guilty of bribery in any manner whatever. He hoped,
however, that it was in the' recollection of the House that his
answer on that occasion really was, that if he had paid head-
'money, or had been guilty of bribery, he would have thought
himself unworthy of a seat in that House.—(Cheers.)
VOTE BY BALLOT.

Mr. Hume, -Mr. Hodges, Mr. D. W. Harvey, Colonel
Bcaucicrk, and Mr. Heat',cote presented petitions in favour
of voting by ballot, from Bristol, Southwark, 'Canterbury, and
other places the names of which were not stated.
Mr. GROTE then brought forward the motion of which he
had given notice. I mean to ask for leave to bring in a Bill
providing the votes shall be henceforward taken in secret by
way of Ballot. If lam allowed to bring in my Bill, I
shall show the House that the regulations essential to a
system of secret voting may easily be framed, with perfect
convenience to the voter, and entire certainty as to the
main object ; and I may safely promise gentlemen, that if
they are not at variance with me on the ground of prin-
ciple, they shall have very little reasou to complain on the
score of deficiency in the details. By assenting to my present
motion, they will not be called upon to pronounce an irre-
vocable determination in favour of secret voting, until they see
the details through which it is to be brought into operation.
To justify myself in calling for the interposition of this House,
I must offer you proof of the existence of some evil requiring
remedy, and susceptible of remedy. I must make out to you
a case of exigency, such as nothing but the powerful and com-
manding arm of the Legislature can effectually deal with.
Now, Sir, how do the facts stand with reference to your eke-
tive system? Have you pure and free elections, or anything
at all like them, as matters stand at present ? Put this ques-
tion to any man of any politics, and I apprehend that the an-
swer which you will obtain will be one and the same. How-
ever indisposed men may be to act vigorously in rectifying the
evil, there are but few who are bold enough or blind enough
to deny its reality ; nay, Sir, I believe that on this subject
I labour under a difficulty opposite to that which is com-
monly experienced by those who submit motions to Parliament;
for the evil which I seek to correct is not unknown, not
unperceived, not of recent growth, but trite, too familiar, and
of too long standing to excite those feelings of repugnance
which properly and intrinsically belong to it. Gentlemen
talk of election abuses as a matter of course, which it may be
decent to punish for the sake of appearances when a flagrant
case happens to be detected, but which none but visionaries
or enthusiasts will ever pretend to suppress or eradicate.
Practices which might be in full keeping and consonance
with the general rottenness of our system of representation as
it stood previous to the Reform Act now stand out in glaring ,
contrast with the principles of that measure, and still more
with the promises and declarations of its authors. When the
Noble Lord, who first introduced the Reform Act, announced
his memorable purpose of gueranteeing to us a House of Com-
mons possessing and deserving the confidence of the people—
when Lord Grey proclaimed to the world that nomination of
Members of Parliament should cease to exist, and that repre-
sentation should be erected everywhere in its place—l con-
tend that, these declarations did, in their fair Meaning and
spirit, imply a pledge to leave none of the known and
standing disorders of the elective system without correct-
tion and redress. I now call upon the Noble Lord for the
fulfilment of his beneficent pledge, and I am sure lie will
not be surprised if the electors, whom his own Act has
created, entreat from him that protection which is necessary
to the quiet and conscientious exercise of their franchise.
But, Sir, there is one other circumstance yet behind, which,
even if it stood alone, would render a prolonged indiffe-
rence on this subject intolerably disgraceful to our character
as a Legislature. Sir, the extent and prevalence of these
election abuses do not now depend upon mere presumption,
however general, and however confident ; it is not now a mat-
ter which every one believes, but which no one can formally
prove ; it rests upon something better and stronger than all
this—upon positive, authentic, and indisputable testimony, col-
lected and sifted by your own Committees. The House will
not forget that there have been several special investigations
of this kind : they will not forget the disclosures made before
the various Parliamentary Committees on Stafford, Warwick,
Hertford, Ipswich, York, Yarmouth, and other places : they
will not forget the reports made by the Municipal Corpora-
tion Commissioners, in reference to the conduct of the free-
men in many important Parliamentary boroughs. These mul-
tiplied investigations have brought to view a body of dark and
infamous details, which cast a melancholy shade over the
genual picture of election management in England.--
( Hear, hear.) But, Sir, over and above the testimonies
collected by these special Committees, important as they
are when singly taken, and still more important in their aggre-
gate effect, there is yet another document more weighty and
conclusive than all of them.—(Hear.) I allude to the re-
port of the Committee of last year on bribery and intimida-
at elections. It will be recollected that the House appointed
this Committee last year to inquire generally into the extent
and prevalence of these evils, and to suggest the best means of
preventing. them. I hold in my hand, Sir, the voluminous se-
ries of evidences received and published by that Committee,
and I scruple not to assert that proofs more irresistible can
hardly be conceived of the depravity and the subjection which
now so largely pervade our elective system. Mr. Cockburn,
a Barrister, examined before that Committee, who gave evi-
dence distinguished for its ability, stated that from all the in-
formation with which his practice and his inquiries furnished
him, he concluded confidently that bribery prevailed at elec-
tions to an extent of which the House and the country had
scarcely any idea. The witnesses whom the Committee
examined from Bristol, Leicester, Norwich, Ipswich—Mr.
Staff, Mr. Hudson, and Mr. Cowell—go far to corroborate
and sustain this conclusion. You see in those places and
elsewhere a system of bribery, standing, perpetual, incorpo-
rated with the habitual proceedings both of agents and elec-
tors. Yoe are plainly told that a candidate who refuses to
conform to it conducts his election at the greatest disadvan-
tage ; you are apprised that it enters into the calculations of a
eel tain class of electors like the annual return of the fair and
the races.—( Hear, hear.) Such, Sir, is the tenor of the
evidence which the Committee on bribery and intimidation
collected with regard to the first branch of their subject.
Now, how stands the fact with regard to the second branch ?
Sir, the testimonies collected by the Committee in proof of
intimidation, are even more abundant and more decisive than
those in proof of bribery. It seems that all parties whatever
make loud complaints of intimidation, some from one quarter,
some from another; but all with one accord proclaiming that
this mighty evil is of continual occurrence. Such, indeed,
was the sense entertained by the Irish Government under the
Hon. Gentlemen opposite, in January and February, 1835, of
the violent intimidation alleged to have been practised at the
elections which had then just terminated, that they directed
special inquiries to be made by several of the chief consta-
bles, and reports to be sent to them on the subject. It is from
these reports that much of the evidence taken before the Com-
mittee on this branch of election intimidation is drawn, some
of the chief officers in the constabulary force having been
personally examined before them. These witnesses depose
to popular tumult and violence in many parts of Ireland, for
the purpose of overawing electors, and constraining them to
vote on the popular side; they depose further, that these
violences were in many cases inflamed and countenanced by
the Catholic priests; and they state several cases of exposure
of voters, who were about to vote against the popular candi-
date, to larming threats and ill-usage from the mob, as well
as to the risk of being ruined by resolutions of exclusive deal-
ing. With regard to other branches of intimidation, we have
not the same advantage of elaborate inquiry undertaken by
local functionaries, under the special direction of the Govern-
Inent. Yet notwithstanding this disadvantage, notwithstand-
ing the absence of official investigation, a bcdy of testimony no
less conclusive and authentic was furnished to the Committee
by numerous spontaneous witnesses. It has been incontes-
tably shown that intimidation by the people and the priest,
take it at the worst, is only one amongst many varieties and
descriptions of intimidation. If the free-will of voters is occa-
sionally borne down by the violence of the mob, it is still
more frequently overruled by the dictation of landlords and
agents, and generally of rich purchasers and consumers.
Perhaps Honourable Gentlemen might imagine that these
mischiefs and abuses are peculiar to Ireland. Would, indeed,
that the fact were so I But it is in this case as in others :
Irish abuses are the same in kind as English abuses, only on
a gigantic and exaggerated scale. The testimonies col-
lected from various quarters of England reveal the same mis-
chiefs, the same oppressions, the same sufferings and pros-
tration of the voter on this side the Channel as on the other.
Sir, I know not bow the House may deal with my proposition
of to-night, but of this I am most certain, that I approach the
subject with a sincere desire to understand the evil in its full
extent, and to fathom it in all its depths and recesses—l sp.
proach it with no purpose of making a part stand for the whole,
or the species for the genus—above all, I approach it with the
deepest anxiety to provide an adequate remedy—a comprehen-
sive and all-sufficient remedy. I stand upon this plain and
broad position, that elections ought to be free—free absolutely
and universally—l try to put down without reserve all inti-
midation, from whatever quarter it may come : I furnish the
elector with a shield against every sort of tyranny over his vote,
whether it be single-headed or many-headed tyranny. One
think I shall just remark, in reference to the Catholic priests,
because it connects itself with the general question as to the
latitude of interference admissible. It seems to be assumed
by Gentlemen opposite, that Catholic priests have no right to
interfere in elections at all—that they are debarred by the
functions which they exercise from doing so. Now, Sir, this
is a position to which I can by no means accede. I never can
consent to divest any man, be he layman or ecclesiastic, of
his character of citizen; because there is no man of any pro.
fession who is not interested in the goodness of the laws, and
in the proceedings of this House. But, Sir, though I stre-

iiiuusly tbe right of Ahe„prirst ;9 iiitcrfsre,at cleption,s,
oinl viu of ipterffri%;,
prigs ai AS 4111(14;1-6, df any dther i!L4I; interierl
in the wrong way as well as in the right.—( Hear, hear, hear.
Sir, if gentlemen will read the evidence of Mr. James, of
Hereford, taken before the Committee on Bribery and Liti-
midation, they will see that the clergy of the Church of
England are not behind-hand in zeal and active industry at
the critical moment of an election. And in the evidence of
James King, gentlemen will find a statement still more strik-
ingly illustrating this conclusion—they will find it recorded
that the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge
dismissed his gardener from his service, because the man re-
fused to comply with his request that he would vote against
the Right Hon. Gentleman the present Member for the town
of Cambridge. Now, Sir, do I complain of the Vice-Chan-
cellor of Cambridge fur interfering at elections ? By no means ;
he had the clearest right to interfere if he chose ; but I
say of him, what I should say also of a Catholic Priest,
that he had no right to interfere in a way utterly subversive
of all liberty and sincerity of voting.—( Cries of " Hear.")
What shall we urge in our def7nce, Sir, if we neglect to ap-
ply any remedial measure, when the distempers in our electo-
ral system have been thus proclaimed as it were by authority,
thus blazoned forth in the full daylight of Parliamentary
recognition? Have gentlemen made up their mind to see
this leprosy cleave to us and to our posterity for ever ;
or do they fondly expect that it will die away of itself,
without any active precautions on our part to counterwork
or neutralise it ? Sir, I am so far from expecting any future
abatement in the practice of intimidating at elections, that I
see every reason to fear a contrary result ; I see strong ground
for anticipating that undue power over the liberty of voters
will be exercised henceforward more vigorously and auda-
ciously than ever. Now what arc the remedies which have
been suggested to correct it? According to my view of the case,
the only remedy is secret voting. But is there any differ-
ent proposition started by the ingenuity of others for the ac-
complishment of the same end? Sir, I regret to be obliged to
state that this report, explicit and voluminous as it is in the
exposition of existing evils, is miserably poor and unproduc-
tive in the suggestion of remedies. All the witnesses to
whom the question is put, agree in thinking that any direct
and formal enactment, imposing specific penalties on intimi-
dation at elections, would be ineffectual and unvailing : in
point of fact, every witness, who proposes any remedy at all,
confines himself to the suggestion of vote by ballot. So
much then, Sir, is undeniable, that the evils attending the
present system of elections are most extensive and revolting,
and that no other remedy has been, or can be, propounded
for them, except the vote by ballot. On this ground alone,
I am entitled to ask that you do not reject my proposition
without attentively and deliberately weighing it. For this at
least must be admitted, even by the warmest opponents of
the ballot, that it is a simple and intelligible change that it
trenches upon no existing rights, that it neither confers new
political privileges on any untried fraction of the people, nor
cancels any existing privileges which the law at present sanc-
tions ; that it neither unduly aggrandises nor unlawfully de-
presses any order of your citizens. Nor can it be said that the
adoption of the Ballot involves the necessity of any other
special changes, or of any costly machinery to be created for
the purpose of -carrying it into operation. If the trial suc-
ceeds, much will be gained ; if it fails, nothing will be lost.
Voting by Ballot is only another name for unfettered and un-
biassed voting ; and when Cicere, in speaking of the Ballot
at Rome, calls it Tabella, vindex tacik libertatis—the up-
holder of silent liberty—he says nothing more than what is ac-
curately and emphatically true. It will be said, perhaps, that
strangers, though they cannot see an elector vote, may guess
or suspect how he has voted; or the elector himself may be
compelled to tell them. True ; he may tell, but who is to de-
termine whether lie tells the truth ? You may compel him to
tell you what he dreamt last night, or any other personal mat-
ter, unknowable except to himself : but can you have the
smallest assurance that his statement is an accurate one, if he
has any interest in making it otherwise ? Whether the elector
tells or not, however, I do not in the least doubt that his vote
will be, in many cases, guessed or suspected. But why is
this ? Because his political sentiments are guessed or sus-
pected; and it will be assumed, as a matter of course, when
he votes secretly, that his vote follows his real sentiments,
whatever they may be. Now, this very presumption, shows
that the Ballot is perfectly efficacious towards its proposed
end ; because it shows that no elector voting in secret can have
any motive for voting contrary to his own real feelings.
Throughout all the records of penal experience, there has
never yet been discovered any method of suppressing crime
so efficacious as that of removing the motive to the per-
petration of it, and rendering it no longer conducive to
the interest or ambition of crißinals. Sir, I challenge any
one to refute this reasoning : I challenge any one to dis-
prove the alliance—the eternal and indissoluble alliance—
between secresy arid freedom. We are seeking for a re-
medy against intimidation, and for protection to the liberty
of the honest voter : I contend that the remedy stares us in
the face, if we did not wilfully avert our eyes from it. If
there be any gentleman to whom intimidation of voters by
the mob is an object of genuine abhorrence, and not a mere
theme for declamation against the political capacity of the
people, I call upon him to support my present motion. He
may assure himself that no mob, no united assemblage of
people, will be able to divert or appropriate to themselves the
suffrage of one single unwilling voter when votes are given by
ballot. My proposition goes to rescue the political con-
science from every species of constraint and tyranny, and to
leave the act of voting, what the constitution promises it shall
be, free, indifferent, and spontaneous. I well recollect, Sir,
that when the Committee on bribery and intimidation was
appointed last year, the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman,
now Attorney-General, observed, that he hoped the appoint-
ment of such a Committee would render the ballot unneces-
sary. I, on the contrary, took the liberty of saying, and I re-
peat it now, that the Ballot affords the only sufficient solu-
tion of the important problem confided to the Committee.
The elector (we are sometimes told) holds his franchise
for the benefit of the community, and ought to exercise
it under responsibility for which purpose publicity of
the vote is essentially necessary. To me, Sir, it seems that
this much extolled responsibility of the elector is either a phan-
tom, a word without meaning, or else it is nothing but a mask
for the precise mischief of intimidation, to be let in and lega-
lized under another name. For to whom is the elector to be
responsible ? I shall be told that he is to be responsible to the
public. But the public, to each individual elector, can be no
other than that fraction of the public with whom he is in im-
mediate dealing or communion, his neighbours or townsmen,
or fellow constituents, who alone take any cognizance of the way
in which he votes. Your responsibility, therefore, comes to
this—that an elector is to be rewarded with the good will of his
neighbours, if he votes as they approve ; he is to be punished
with their if his vote be such as they disapprove. Admit
this to be just, and you sanction the principle of intimidation at
once. If goodness of election depends upon the responsibility of
electors, we cannot too soon repeal the Reform Act, and cut
down our electors to a select few : for the smaller the consti-
tuency, the more perfect will responsibility become—nay, the
constituency of Old Sarum before the Reform Act presented
an example of electoral responsibility exalted to its highest
point. Lastly, Sir, I beg you to consider what it is that an
elector has to do, and then ask yourself how the performance
of his task can ever be made the subject of accountability to
parties without. He has no specific train of duties to perform
on which the criticism of the public can fasten : he has only
to record his preference, without any reason assigned, between
two or more candidates, and the virtue of the process consists
in his delivering his judgment genuinely and sincerely—in-
tegro ac libero anitno. Now, Sir, I confidently maintain that
this is a process which must spring exclusively from the free will
and inward conscience of the elector himself : no human super-
vision can extort from him a true verdict, because no human
eye can discern what the true verdict is : if responsibility
to the public has any effect upon him at all, it will induce him to
abandon his own judgment altogether, and vote for that candi-
date whom lie believed to be the favourite of the public ; thus
violating the most essential obligation of the franchise. Look
at it which way you will, Sir, this idea of the responsibility
of the electors is a compound of mischief and illusion : the
numbers of the body and the nature of the franchise conspire
to render it useless to any good purpose, and effectual only
in silencing, the free and honest expression of individual con-
science. Sir, on the former occasion when I brought for-
ward thiS motion, the Noble Lord the Member for Stroud
contended, that though the ballot does away with all the evil
influences over voters, it removes them at the same time out
of the reach of all good and improving influences. I may
safely challenge the Noble Lord or any one else to prove
that such an effect will flow from it. Surely there can be no
good influences except those which operate upon the elector
through the medium of his own conscience and conviction--
those which he obeys freely and spontaneously, apart
from all calculations of future profit or loss to himself
Now, will any portion of such influences as these be enfee-
bled, when the suffrage is rendered secret? Sir, I contend
that they will all be left entire and unimpaired: they will be
as powerful under the Ballot as they arc at present ;
nay, they will be expanded and fostered to a degree much be-
yond what is at present practicable. The evil.' influences at
elections are now most formidable and triumphant; it is pub-
licity alone which secures to them this triumph ; it is publicity
which renders thousands of honest voters traitors to their po-
litical convictions, and to their inward conscience, though it
cannot in any case create a sense of public duty in the bosom
of the dishonest. Make the suffrage secret, and you banish
all these evil influences at once. Hitherto, Sir, I have spoken
chiefly of the effects of the ballot in extinguishing intimidation
over electors. But perhaps I shall be told that it will' not be
equally effectual in preventing bribery. No doubt, Sir, the
specific agency of the Ballot is against intimidation ; but its
effect will be important and powerful in checking bribery. It
will entirely suppress bribery according to the modes at pre-
sent practised. It will greatly hamper and discourage bribery
under any conceivable form or process; it will render the at-
tempt to bribe voters, even under the most favourable circum-
stances, more uncertain, more costly, more difficult, and more
hazardous. When the suffrage becomes secret, you cannot buy
an elector's vote individually and separately, for he cannot sell
the certainty of his vote; he can sell the probability of it : this
is the best which he has to offer. He may certainly offer this con-
tingency for sale if any one will buy it ; but what man in his
senses will ever pay down the purchase money for as commodity
of which there is to be no assured and ostensible delivery ?
In fact, the ballot will go nearer to eradicate bribery altoge-
ther than any other measure which could be devised while the
suffrage remains public. There is this essential distinction
between bribery and intimidation. In both you have two con-
spirators who confederate against the freedom and purity of
election ; but in the case of intimidation, one of, the conspira-
tors is an unwilling agent, and therefore the conspiracy is
totally broken up the moment he is left to his own freewill.
Whereas in the case of bribery, both parties are willing agents,
in so far as they can trust each other, and therefore the same
precaution's are not so omniFotent to their intended purpose—
they serve only, but they do serve most effectually, to discon-
cert and confound such a conspiracy, by destroying all avi-

donee or certain'fy ean'snmtnne,ion of t! bargAn. V 7,
ever, I.ldolr.s that this is doiog Ct rri 0.1:07 inc all Oth
MCI tts,.tnuclif assuming tbn'' paibliCity
rt of the vote
y. etise cinnplete,
even if I werc to; t"4,•!7 It (fan be
- • 4,
Fhown thit the ballot will el.t.et!i4:',4 ,1a
ion•
Your honest voters cry to you for protection a,,,;;',.:r'st•
tion—they arc men who would spurn the idea of a bribe, of of
turning their votes to any corrupt- profit—but they do pray
to be guarded against wrong, and loss and oppression in the
conscientious exercise of their franchise. A measure is pro-
posed which completely accomplishes this object; tend. am I
really. to be told, as a fatal objection to we elown
grant you the Ballot ; it is true that it does away with intl=
midation entirely, but there are still sonic distant possibilities
of bribery which it leaves not absolutely barred out, and there,-
fore it is not worth our consideration." I must contend,
that this would be the most extraordinary ground of exception
ever yet taken to any kgislative proposition. It is my duty to
' touch upon one or two other objections which I know Ity be
made against the Ballot, and I shall proceed to do so with -cr,'
much brevity as possible. What member or a Club is there
who does not. feel that the harmony and kindly fellowship
among the general body is essentially maintained by the
secrecy with which voting is carried on ? Well then, Sir, the
special point for yours consideration is, whether voting at Par-
liamentary elections be one of those occasions on which secresy
is better or worse than publicity. Now, Sir, perhaps I may
be considered as unduly presumptuous ; but I challenge any
Gentleman to point out any one good consequence arising
from publicity of votes, or any one bad consequence aris-
ing from secresy of votes at Parliamentary elections.—
( Hear, hear.) Gentlemen may perhaps say that the vote
of the superior person must be proclaimed, in order that
it may serve as a guide and index to the inferior. There
might be something in this reasoning if votes were the only
way open to a man of making known his political opinions.
But I need not remind you, Sir, that secresy of voting is per-
fectly compatible with full publication of opinions by the
tongue or the pen, wherever any man chooses to make his
opinions public. Sir, I look in vain for any one advantage,
private or public, derived from publicity of votes ; I find no
one disadvantage, still more no dishonour, attached to secrecy.
His Majesty, in calling a new Parliament, wishes to get toge-
ther a House of Commons possessing the confidence of the
people. In order to be sure that he arrives at the truth, he
takes the opinion of every separate elector, confidentially,
apart from the hearing of any one else. What dishonour can
there be in secresy, when it is only the handmaid of sincerity,
the pledge of free speech, as between the voter and the public?
I have attempted to prove—and I think I have proved—that
secret suffrage is absolutely necessary to protect the honest
voter in the conscientious discharge of his duty to the public.
Do my opponents refute me, and prove the contrary ? They
do no such thing. They omit altogether the duty of the voter
towards the public, and they carry your attention to the pri-
vate obligation of the voter, as regards some third party ; they
expatiate on the maintenance of good faith, as between pro-
miser and promisee. I must consider that this is a pure di-
vertion of your attention away from the main point at issue;
for the business of the Legislature is, to place an elector on
the best and most convenient footing for discharging the spe-
cial duty required of him by the public. Whether he tells
truth, or keeps his promises to third parties, must be left to
his own feelings and his own sense of propriety. But, Sir,
let us take the objection as it stands, and inquire what it
amounts to. The ballot, we are told, will lead to false pro-
mises and false declarations on the part of voters. How or
why should it produce this effect ? Does it command any
voter to break his promise ? Does it hold out to him any new
inducement or reward for breaking his promise? No, nothing
of the kind ; it merely enjoins him to perform the act of vo-
ting without a witness, and thus indirectly enables him to vote
either according or contrary to any previous promise, without
being found out, if he be inclined to do so. We are told by
Milton, that

" Ease will recant
Vows made in pain, as violent and void."
But wherever the vow has not been made in pain—wherever
ease has made the vow, ease will keep it also. This, Sir,
is the whole amount of the mischief of promise-breaking ; and
I entreat the attention of the House to it, that none but com-
pulsory promises are in danger of being broken, when votes are
given secretly. Let me put the question now, what mischief
would ensue if these compulsory promises should come to be
broken? A voter ought not to make such a promise if it be
at variance with his own sentiments and conscience. Granted :
but assuming that he has been guilty of the weakness and the
wrong of giving such a promise, are we to arrange our system
of voting for the express purpose of compelling him to keep it?
To do this would be nothing less than seeking to deprive the
voter, by our own act, of the means of faithfully discharging his
duty to his country—a duty prior to all private private agree-
ments with third parties—a duty implied in the very possession
and exercise of the franchise. The evil of intimidation, the
evil of mendacity, and the evil of promise breaking, will
all disappear at the same time, and before one and the
same simple remedy—a free and secret vote.—(Cheers.)
Gentlemen tell me that the Ballot will be fatal to what they
call the legitimate influence of property. Now, Sir, I deny this
assertion point blank in any defensible meaning which the
words "legitimate influence " can be made to bear—in any
meaning of the words which a patriot or a freeman can ac-
knowledge. I assert fearlessly that under a system of secret
voting the legitimate influence of property will be preserved
unimpaired; nay, more, that it will be even exalted beyond
what it is at present. There is only one species of influence
which the Ballot will withdraw from a rich man—it will take
away the power of rewarding or punishing electors according
to the manner in which they vote. Now, Sir, I would ask,
and I hope the question will be plainly answered, whether it
be really this power of rewarding or punishing electors which
gentlemen mean when they talk, of the legitimate influence
of property ? Does the House intend to recognise in any one
citizen of this community—Peer or Commoner, titled or un-
titled—a legitimate authority to reward or punish electors for
their votes? If we do, Sir, the sooner in all consistency we re-
peal our statutes against bribery the better—the sooner we drop
the farce of affecting to condemn intimidation the better. Sir,
I have now exhausted, not, indeed, all that can be said on
this important subject, but at least all that the House will
bear to hear from me about it, and I have to thank them for
the patience with which they have listened. Before I con-
clude, permit me, in a few words to recall to your attention
the point on which you are about to decide. Permit me to re.
mind you that I am aiming at no end which is not in the strict-
est and highest sense constitutional. I am aiming at nothing
except the freedomiand integrity of the parliamentary suffrage ;
a purpose not merely within the limits of the constitution, but
absolutely essential to its working and vitality—absolutely es-
sential to the attainment of a House of Commons really pos-
sessing the confidence of the people, which the Reform Act
so emphatically promised to us. Permit me further to call to
your remembrance the humiliating fact that freedom of elec-
tion, as things stand at present, is in many places little better
than a dream and a fiction. Your election arrangements arc
traversed on all sides by corruption and intimidation ; your
electors arc, in many cases, compelled to vote against their
real sentiments, in many cases deterred from voting at all.
This fact, if indeed, it were not already notorious enough, has
been publicly and incontestibly certified by the evidence taken
before your own Committee ; and I venture to warn you that
if, after such overwhelming notoriety of the evil, you remain
doaf to all suggestions of a remedy, you will implicate your-
selves in something little short of the guilt of connivance
and participation.—( Cheers.) Now, Sir, for this acknow-
ledged evil I have ventured to suggest a remedy. Let those
who object to it provide a better if they can : all I shall say
is, that my ingenuity can discover no other remedy either like
or second to it. I propose to you the Vote by Ballot—a mea-
sure simple, specific, easy of introduction, and bearing pre-
cisely upon the mischiefs under your consideration.—( Cheers. )
I have endeavoured to show you that the Ballot is an antidote,
complete, unfailing, and all-sufficient, as against the master-
evil of intimidation, and that it is the most powerful of all
correctives as against bribery. I have proved that it is the
only expedient for enabling an honest voter to walk in the
path of conscience without serious loss and peril ; and that
the State can have no security for obtaining what is the
primary purpose of election—a genuine and sincere expression
of sentiment from the elector—except by taking his vote in
secresy and solitude—
" Nam vera3 votes tum demum pectore ab imo
Ejiciuntur ; et cripitur persona, manet res."

. .
—( Hear, hear.) I press upon you the adoption of the Bal-
lot, no less as an effectual protection to the honest voter,
which he has the fullest right to demand—than as a certificate
to the public of the genuineness of all votes, and of the un-
impeachable title of all representatives chosen.—(Loud
cheers.) The Hon. Member concluded with moving for
leave to bring in a Bill, providing that the votes at elec-
tions for Members of Parliament be taken secretly by way of

Mr. LEADER seconded the motion There are two
kinds of influence ; there is, first, the moral influence which
a great man who is also a go>d man is certain to obtain over
the opinions, the feelings, the very thoughts of his poorer
neighbours and dependents ; of that influence no man can
complain. There is, on the other hand, the immoral influ-
ence not gained by goodness ; but by strength over weakness,
by wealth over poverty, by greatness over dependence, and
exercised not with a beneficent desire to advance the welfare
of the community, but to augment the power or promote the
selfish interests of those who exercise it ; such, 1 regret to
say, is the influence too commonly used by the creditor
over the debtor—by the rich over the poor—by the great
merchant over the small trader—by the landlord over the
tenant—by the great and powerful, in short, over the humble
and the weak ; to such an extent, indeed, does this sys-
tem of undue influence prevail in this country, that most
landlords appear to think that they have as good a right to
their tenant's vote as to the rent of their farms. It con-
,
stantly happens, for instance, that a landlord makes a favour
of granting his permission to a candidate, or to a candidate's
friend, to canvass his tenants for their votes. As if, forsooth,
the candidate would be violating the landlord's property,
poaching upon his preserves, if he were to canvass the tenants
without the landlord's sanction. Again, Sir, to prove that
the votes of tenants are considered to proceed not from their
own feelings, or knowledge, or conscience, but from their
landlord's mandate, is it not notoriously matter of congra-
tulation among Tories, when a great estate passes by inhe-
ritance or purchase, or other meuns, from a Reformer into
the hands of a Tory ; and, on the other hand, is it not cause
of rejoicing among Reformers when a Tory's estate passes to
a Reformer. There is a case in point which occurred only
last year. In the western division of Somerset Lord Egre-
mont has a large estate, with a command of, perhaps, 200_ or
300 voters. The management of the estate was entrusted to
resident steward ; till within a year that steward was a staunch
old Whig. I need not inform the House that the tenants
always voted for the Whig candidates. Well, last year
the good old Whig steward died, and after a short interval
another steward was appointed. The new steward is, like
barrister; ; bpt unlikehis predecessor, i. a cry respectably

?)reflecessor, he is a very deeided TO7V. He is, indeed,
faolo,.;s; co.• having been the unsuceessful
d..,te r!,•evr•ar co^tc elections. his appointment was of
Tfu-y cantli-
course 11.11:e-1 yzith
,i;oy by the Tories of West Somerset. Well
a short tinw after' an old Tory lady in the same division! of
BGwel'set died, and left her estate to very decided Reformer...
" Good news," said toy His:. Friends the Members for West,
'oinerset, t.ti,y had looked so grave on the appointment of the
Tory ,;!(.3:"ard ; " Chi-, Is some cornpeation for that unfortu-
nate aft sir." Sir, these filets clearly prove one thing—that it
is looked tr.‘on as a matter ef course that v'hatever the tenant's
real ()pinion may he, his vote invari:olly follow the vote
of his landlord. I find another instal-we of ;his sort of influ-
enee in the evidence given before the Bribery and Intimida-
tion Committee. There are, in South Devon. > !tree
parishes
i(lgOtiter, called Battery, Staverton. and Bro.'dhampston.
fo pari:)ll of Rattery, there were 01 votes Foiled at the
lest electio9 of 1835. Only one was a freeholder",. the rest
were /e.,4s,elio:ders under one and the same landhohier, Sir
Walter Career, io whom the whole parish belongs. NOri, in
the election of 1:332, these electors all voted for Mr. Bu:teel
tin!rtform candin'Ne. At that election, their landlord, Sir W-
Carew, t-! ?d for Bulteel; but in 18.35 they all voted foe
Mr. Parker, the Conseevative candidate, against Lord John
Russell. What could trussibly have caused this total change?
When I tell the House that their landlord, Sir Walter Carew,
voted for Parker, they said not, lam sure, think it ne-
cessary to look further for any other cause ; but Members
opposite may say, as the landlord of Battery conscientiously
changed his opinion, why should oot his tenants of Battery
have also conscientiously changed their opinion? There is,
fo: tunately, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, a satis-
factory answer to that objection. It seems that the farmers
of the three parishes of Battery, Staverton, and Broadhamp
st9n form one class of persons, are a very intelligent set of
men, and ors_, in the habit of associating very much together;
they are all of them Reformers out principle; and, in 1832,
almost all of them voted for the IZeform candidate ; but in
1835, the farmers of one of the three parishes, that is, of
Battery, voted against the Reform candidate, while their
friends and neighbours, the farmers of Staverton and Broad-
hampston, voted, as before, almost unanimcasly, in favour of
the Reform candidate. What is the secret of this partial
change ? Why, simply this—that in Battery the farmers
were all under the influence of one landlord, who h,
his mind, whereas the farmers of Staverton and Brcadhamp-
ston were under little or no influence, and could von: accor-
dingad changed
to their own conscientious opinions. I whit not
weary the House by citing any more instances of this mid"
influence ; let the most incredulous Member look into else
evidence given last year before the Bribery and Intimidatien
Committee, and lie must be convinced of the almost universal
existence of this immoral and degrading influence. In the
feudal times the Baron was followed to the wars by his tenants
—a glittering train of steel-clad men-at-arms: the system is
still the same, though neither so warlike nor so imposing :
now the landlord is followed to the poll by his tenants—a sub-
missive train of coerced electors ; and the results in both Cases
arc nearly the same. In old times the Baron who could raise
the greatest number of good fighting men attained for himself
by their courage and good service, rank and power and con-
sequence; in these times the landlord who can command the
greatest number of good voting men, is sure, through their
votes, to obtain for himself or his family; place or pension or
patronage ; indeed these things can seareCly be attained in
any other way. I have myself heard the curses and the
threats of men who had been compelled by stsern necessity
to sacrifice their vote to the interest of their children.
have myself heard the son of a voter who had suffeeed and
been half-ruined because he would not give a dishonest vote,
cursing the author of their misery, and wishing him it: his
grave. Are these the feelings which the gentry of Eng,-
land desire to produce in the hearts of their fellow-country-
men ? They may sneer at curses, they may laugh at threats;
trusting to their wealth, and their station, and their power,
they may exclaim with the tyrant of old, " Oderint dune
metuant ;" but the time must come when the people's
hate and the people's indignation will make them tremble.
Our opponents say that in smell constituencies bribery would,
under the Ballot, be carried on wholesale. Now, granting
for a moment that this argument io worth anything, it is an
argument not against the Ballot but against small constituen-
cies. Let, therefore, no constituency eonsist of less than
1,500 or 2,000 voters, and the richest mart in the country
would soon find his purse exhausted, and his seat too dearly
purchased, even if he could purchase one at all. Again, in
what method do our opponents say that bribery under the
Ballot in cases of small constituencies would be carried.' on ?
Why, in this manner—that a candidate should promise, if ,tue-
cessful, to distribute a certain sum of money among the elect-
tors. Now, under the present system it is notorious that in
many places there is bribery on the part of the unsuccessful
as well as on the part of the successful candidate. On the
very showing, therefore, of our opponents, half the existing
bribery would be stopped. The real fact is that the Ballot
would very soon put down bribery altogether. With respect
to intimidation, in spite of the denial of our opponents, the
Ballot must have a very good effect, even although it should
net prevent some men from occasionally exercising a tyran-
nous power over their dependants. Great horror is expressed by
our opponents at the prospect of the influence of property being
taken away by the Ballot. The bad, the immoral, influence
of mere property, unsupported by character and moral worth,
would undoubtedly be diminished ; but the good, the moral,
the only proper influence of property in the hands of a good
man enjoying a good character for judgment, honesty, and
knowledge, far from being diminished, would be vastly in-
creased by the Ballot. Are there not many laws against bri-
bery? And what is bribery but the undue, the immoral influ-
ence of property ? And in speeeehes in this House we hear of
the horrible injustice that the Ballot would bring upon the
rich, by depriving property of its in.9uence. Now call the
elective franchise a right or a trust, as you please, the duty-of
an elector is to deliver his genuine and co.nscientious opinion
at the poll, whether it agrees or disagrees With .that of other
people ; any elector, therefore, who under undue influeuce
gives a vote against his opinion, is guilty of a beeach of pub-
lic duty ; but the man who by undue influence ,coerces his
vote, is doubly guilty—the man that makes another thieve
is more guilty than the thief : the man who hires a false
witness, is more guilty than the base perjurer : the man
who pays an assassin, is more guilty than the murderer ;
and thus the man who makes another vote against hie
conscience, is more guilty than the man who so votees
What 1 exclaim some Hon. Members even on this side of the
House, are the electors insensible to feelings of independence?
Alas, no ; they have strong feelings of independence, but
they have also a very natural feeling for themselves, for the
welfare of their families, for the livelihood of their cfsildren.
Can we blame them when we see them tempted by gain (call
it bribery or head-money, as you like) on the one hands
threatened with misery on the other, if they neglect what
they may perhaps consider in their individual case an unim-
portant public duty, in order that they may attain, what to
them is an all-important, a vital object—that is, the means of
securing a livelihood for themselves and their family. Are
you then prepared (say our opponents) to state that the House
of Commons is not composed of the real representatives of
the people of England ? To that question I answer that, ad-
mitting as I do with gratitude the great improvements in re-
presentation produced by the Reform Bill, I do maintain that
this House does not, even now, fairly represent the real feel-
ings of the electors of this country ; and that it never will re-
present them fairly until the electors generally can, under the
protection of the Ballot, give an honest and conscientious
vote. Look to the counties especially; are there not many
county Members in this House who represent not the great
body of the electors, according to their beeriest opinions—but
the clergy, the magistracy, and the few great proprietors,
whose tenants are compelled to vote against their real opinions.
If an example is wanted of undue influence in a populous city,
look to the case of Bristol, as stated before the Committee
on bribery and intimidation ; if an example is wanted of un-
due influence exercised by one great proprietor over the con-
stituency of a small town, look to the ease of Ripon, es
stated before the same Committee. The abuse is notorious'
and the people believe there is no remedy for it but the
ballot. As to secrecy not being insured by the ballot, .all
that I ask this—recognize the principle that every mans°
vote should be his own and another man's, that every man
should be enabled to vote as lie pleases, and protected in the
exercise of his elective franchise • but so long as open voting
continues, this cannot be effected.' Allow my Hon. Friend
the Member for London to introduce his Bill, and I will
venture to declare that lie will so frame the clauses of the Bills
that he will so regulate the machinery of voting, that in spite
of threats and of spies—in spite of public intimidation and
of domestic treachery—the vote of the elector must perforce
remain a secret to every human being but himself. I have
now gone through most of the arguments usually urged
against the ballot, but it seems -to me that in all these ar-
guments and assertions we have only the professed reasonse
of our opponents for disliking the ballot. It appears to
that
their real bone fide reason for opposing the ballot is this, thatan _
they know the Ballot would take from the wealthy dd
powerful their undue influence and their unjustcoponse wee,
anuently
that it would place the choice of Members (and q
the chief power in the State) where it ought to Ire by right, in
the hands of the electors. The consequence of this would be,
that the rich and the powerful who wished to administer the
affairs of the State, would be compelled to render themselvee
fit by knowledge, energy, and conduct to occupy those places
which they now habitually hold, riot because they are fit to
en to have
hold them, but because they happ inherited a teat
g
estate, or to descend from a noble family, or because they
have zealously devoted themselves to one or other of the two
aristocratic parties. It is acknowledged on all sides that cor-
ruption is practised—it is acknowledged that intimidation pre-
vails to an unparalleled extent—it is acknowledged that
undue influence is exercised in the most revolting manner--
offer you a remedy for all these evils you
reject
eiitt,.
How
whenwe
then can we, how can the people, believe that
you are sincere and earnest in your professions and your de-
clarations against these abuses? In this respect I am more
surprised at the opposition offered to us by certain Reformers
on this side of the House, than by the Conservative Reformers
opposite. The present Ministers know (for they have told
us) that they are the representatives of the people as well
as the Ministers of the Crown. They are undoubtedly the
most liberal and the most honest, and therefore the most
popular Ministers who ever ruled this country. They have
generally deserved the confidence of the people, and they
have had, and (so long as they go or. in the same liberal_
and honest course) they will continue to have, the support of
the popular party in this House. Knowing all this—as they
well know it—and being well assured that the great majorityr
of the aristocracy of birth and of wealth—that the baa,ra.l
clergy, the magistracy, and the squirearchy are greis 11
the
against them, and that they are maintained in pot.ve
*st bys nee
will of the people alone; why, I say, do they p
the people's power
sisting as a Government this measure, which, aboesi-esi
would increase their power—by increasing,
friends to
Why are the
and their confidence in Ministers ? all others
to oppose
ballot now in the Government compelled