The Sun.
London, England, 1838-02-16 00:00:00

THE BALLOT.

Lord MAHON presented a petition from the town
of Hertford against the Ballot, which he said came be-
fore the House under ern se poculiar circumstances :
A meeting was called in favour of the Ballot, but the friends
of the good old English method of voting—(A laugh)—out-
numbered the adherents of the Ballot, and adopted this peti-
tion, which prayed the House never to consent to the adoption
of that mode of voting.
Mr. WARD said that he had a. petition of a very different
nature to present from the same town. He understood that
the persons whose names Ivere signed to the petition which was
presented by the Noble Lord were persons who had no right
to vote, and who were paid fur their attendance at the Meet-
-( Hear, hear.) The lion. Member then presented a
petition in favour of the Ballot, which was signed by a large
proportion of the inhabitants of Hertford.

. .
Lord MAHON said that with respect to the statement
made by the Hon. Member as regarded the petition which he
had presented, he was bound to say that it was the first he had
heard of it. He would like to know the grounds on which the
Hon. Member made that statement.

Mr. WARD said he had strong grounds for supposing the
Facts to be as he had stated, or he would not have made
:he assertion. The facts had been communicated to him by
letters horn friends of his in Hertford.

Mr. HUME presented petitions from Kilkenny, in favour
of the Ballot and Triennial Parliaments, from the parish of
Highgate, in the County of Middlesex, praying for the Ballot
alone ; from Carnarvon, also for the Ballot ; and from Wemyss,
in Scotland, in favour of the extension of the suffrage, vote by
ballot, and triennial Parliaments.

Mr. WALLACE presented a petition from the borough
of Kilmarnock, praying for the Ballot on this occasion ; but
stating that they meant next to apply for the Extension of the
Suffrage and Triennial Parliaments.—( A laugh.)
Sir H. VYVYAN presented petitions from the Eastern
division of the county of Cornwall, signed by 2,167 electors,
praying for the protection of Vote by Ballot ; in the prayer of
which the Hon. Baronet said he fully concurred.
Mr. AGLIONBY presented a petition in favour of the
ballot from East Stonehouse, signed by between 1,500 and
1,600 persons.
Mr. CHARLES BULLER presented a petition from'a
place the name of which we cJuld not learn, in favour of
the Ballot, signed by electors out of 185.
Mr. O'CONELL presented petitions from Flint, and
from places in Carnarvonshire, in favour of the Ballot;
also a petition from the Mayor and Citizens of Norwich, very
numerously signed, which was agreed to by the unanimous
vote of a public meeting, at which the Mayor presided.
Mr. SOMERVILLE presented a petition front the city
and borough of Canterbury, in favour of the Vote by Ballot,
and the shortening of the duration of Parliaments.
Mr. E. ELLICE presented petitions from Cupar-in-Fifc,
and from the Town Council of that place, in favour of the
Ballot.

Mr. GILLON presented petitions from Strathaven and
Milton to the same effect.
Mr. FIELDEN presented similar peritions from Wigan.
Mr. E. BULLED. presented similar petitions fromdiffe-
rent parishes in Staffordshire.
Mr. ERLE presented similar petitions from five parishes in
Oxfordshire.

Mr. 0. STANLEY presented similar petitions.
Mr. LEADER, presented a petition from Bridgewater
in favour of the Ballot. The petitioners stated that
no less a number than a hundred tenants of the
Earl of Egremont bad been ejected from their tenements
in consequence of having voted at the last elect. on for the
LiberalMembers.—(Oßkosition Cheers ) He ( Mr. Leader),

when he made that statement, expected to be cheered
from the other side of the House; but be thought that cheer
would be materially decreased, when he stated the c.: use of what
had taken place. The • cause was that the late Liberal
steward of the Noble Earl was dead, and had been suecteeded
by one of Tory principle;.—(Cheers from the Ministrial
Benches.) From his, (Mr. Leader's) connection ratio
the Borough of Bridgewater, he felt justified in stating
that the petition was signed by a large proportion of'
the property and the intelligence of the Borough. Out of
the four Magistrates of the Borough, three had signed it.
Lord EBRINGTON presented a petition from a parish in
Devote, in favour of the Ballot.
Mr. WiZ_KLE Y presented a petition from Stirling, signed
17 423 persons, Raying for an extension of the suffrage, shorten-
ing of ;he duration of Parliaments, and the vote by Ballot ; also,
one from Comne, Lancaz•hire, complaining of the burden of
the National Debt, praying 1;-)t• an abolition of the Corn Laws,
an extension of the Suffrage, e shortening the duration of
Parliaments, and the Vote by Ballot.
Lord DUNGANNON wished to ask the Right Hon. tho
Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether, as the time fu? volun-
tary commutation of Tithes expired in October next, it was the
intention of the Government to extend that time ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said .the
matter was not connected with his department. Had notice
of the question been given, he would have been prepared to
give an answer. If the Noble Lord were to renew the ques-
tion when his Noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) was in his place,
lie would be able to give an answer.

I - Lord EBRINGTON had on a former occasion put a ques-
tion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with respect to the -
confiscation of property of English merchants, previous to
the declaration of war with Spain in 1804; on which occasion
the Right Hon. Gentleman said it was proposed that the same
course should be taken with them as With the Danish claims
He wished to know from his Right I:Io.-t• Friend whether her
Majesty's Government intended to take Any steps upon the
subject.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHINUER said
that in the case of the Danish Claims certain parties •
had suffered loss in time of war by acts w;:ich were
unusual in ordinary casss. The feeling of the I-iPuse in
that case was that the claimants should obtain re tress.
Vic-,7ing the Spanish claims in a similar light, it was his in-
tention, i!I the course of the present year, to submit a motion
with respect to th,n-n to the House, giving, of course, sufficient
time, so that the Ho:ise might be satisfied that all parties lia-
ble to come under the stme class should have an opportunity
of laying their cases before the House. The Estimate was
being prepared, and a Treasury Minute would be shortly laid
on the table.

VOTE BY 13.A.LLOT.
Mr. GROTE presented petitions in favour of the Ballot,
from Bolton, in the county of Lancaster; signed by 6,580
persons ; from Mould, Flintshire, by 550 ; fro:11 Trowbridge,
in Wiltshire, by 1,300 ; Berwick-on-Tweed, sig,7ed by 750 ;
Frome, in Somerset, 700; the united parishes of' Carberry
and Dunforth, in Kildare, by 700. From the hunulred of
Mitford and Lawnditch, Norfolk; from Ripon, in
Yorl4sbire; from Flint-Ellesmere, Salop; from HarwiChs
Epping, and Harlow, Essex ; from Bungay, South Elmham ;
the Mayor, Aldermen, and Town Council of Richmond, in
Yorkshire ; Fairfordi Gloucester ; frem Budleigh, Salterton,
Devon ; from the FreehOlders of Oxfordshire, near Tetsworth ;
the Freeholders of Oxfordshire, near Henley-on-Thames; the
parishes of Abdie and Dunbag„'n Fifeshire ' • the Preses of the
Glasgow Reform Association ; a:ld from Great Marlow—in
all 22.
petition from
Mr. BOLLING cordially supporte:l the
Bolton ; and bore testimony to the res;iectability of the
petitioners.

THE VOTE BY BALLOT.
Mr. GROTE—Mr. Speaker, Sir, I rise pursu,tlit to m y
notice to move for leave to bring in a Bill enacting L'hot the
votes at Parliamentary elections shall be taken by Ballot. I
trust, Sir, that I shall stand acquitted of anything like urnilLe
pertinacity or presumption of my own in renewing the motion
now, if it were only for the numerous and weighty petitions'
whleh have been laid on your table.—( Hear.) Sir, I undertook
originally to introduce a proposition of a Secret Suffrage,
from a strong conviction that there was no other method
of voting compaible either with freedom or with purity of
election. I was not fortunate enough to find myself supported
by a majority of the House, and the old mode of voting still
continues the law of the lands with all its tendencies, such
as they are, to good as well as to evil ; and those tenden-
cies are manifest since the last discussion on the Ballot, in
a manner the most flagrant and unequivocal (hear, hear);
and so forcibly have the lessons of the last fsny months
proved
the indispensable necessity of some protection to the voter,
that I feel animated by fresh hopes, and impellesd by
addi-
tional strength of motives, to urge the subject again :Ton the
new House of Commons here assembled.—(Hear, heat. Sir,
I can scarcely flatter myself that I can advance much n,ew
argument upon this subject in addition to what has been urges.(
on former occasions, when it was discussed in this House; but
experience has furnished us with new facts, and fresh as we
aro from the recollection of the late election, I hope we shall
approach the discussion of the Ballot with minds more candid
and unprejudiced than htsretofore. I propose the Ballot not
merely as a fanciful experiment for making that which is now
good still better, not merely as a measure of insurance
against evils remote and contingent—(Criss of Hear, hear)
—but as a remedy against evils at. prcseni acknowledged
and full of baneful working, an efficient remedi against inti-
midation and bribery.—(Cheers.) No one can deny that
bribery and intimidation are serious injuries. As little can
any one deny that bribery and intimidation, one or either
of them, affect at this moment almost every vein and
artery of our elective system—( Hear, hear, hear)—aOd
that the remedies we possess against them are impotent
and contemptible.—( Hear, hear.) That a remedy against
such mischief is earnestly required is obvious to every one ; and
let me ask what other measure is there—what substitute
or remedy, of any promise or efficiency, which has ever
been produced, eren by those Gentlemen whose aversion
to the Ballot was the most unconquerable ? Admitting even
that my proposition presents nothing but a fair ps'obability and
chance of success, yet what is the alternative? ;Ole alterna-
tive is that bribery and intimidation must continue as they
are now—that the evil is entailed upon us permanently
and beyond the reach of cure.—(Hear, hear.) But
I really submit that this is a proposition far too discourag-
ing to be entertained by any sincere patriot, at least
while the experiment of the Ballot remains yet to be tried.
It has been common of late, more especially since the me-
morable declaration of the Noble Lord (John Russell) on
the first night of the Session, to connect the Ballot more
than it ever was before with otht7 propositions of Reform.
The Hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. D. W. Harvey)
had a notice on the books for the Bth of !his month, including
the Vote by Ballot, Triennial Parliaments, and Household
Suffrage ; but, though that Honourable IS amber's opinion
was strongly in favour of connecting these flaw°
lie had been good enough to withdraw his isicnice, that
measures,
it might not come in the way of a decision on the
Ballot separately, and upon its own merits.—(Hear, hear,
hear.) lam much indebted to him for this courtesy. ..My
proposition now, as it has been before, is for the Ballot
separately and singly, unaccompanied by any other
measure whatever—not because I think that the Ballot,
when applied to an: imperfect representative system,
can render that system perfect—not that I am insensible
to the value of other measures of refsrm ; I am bound,
both to Household Suffrage and to Triennial Parliaments—hut
I know that the Ballot alone will rectify most of the
abuses in the elective system ; and still more, because I am
prepared to found it separately, on its own merits. To fix
the extent of the suffrage, the duration of Parliaments,
and the distribution of the constituency, in a way
most conducive to good Gouernment, are doubtless most
important problems : but it is a problem no less essential,
though quite distinct from all these, to appoint such
a method of voting as shall best guard against abuse
is the exercise of the franchise.—(llear, hear.) Let us make
what other arrangements vse please, still we cannot avoid
the discussion of this last question, on its own
ground and merits.—( hear, hear.) Whether we alter the
franchise, or leave as it is now—whether we adopt Triennial
Parliaments, or retain Septennial Parliaments—still, in either
case, it is imperative upon us to fix a security for en-
abling the existing voters to give their votes with
probity, in regard to the public—( Hear, hear, hear)--aoith
safety in regard to themselves. —( Cheers. ) I call upon you,
therefore, to decide upon a measure which will rescue the voter
from temptation and constraint—which will abate intimidation
and bribery, although the suffrage Le no more extensive, nor
the constituency better distributed than are at present.
Besides, Sir, I am prepared to show that the Ballot is a pro-
position which not only may be consistently supported, but
which ought to be equally supported, both by those who ad-
vocate and by those who resist a farther extension of the
suffrage. Not merely because under open voting the exist-
ing electors are exposed to wrongful interference, to severe
personal hardship and vexation, and to factitious allure-
ments, from which it is but common justice and common
prudence to relieve them, even although no farther mos.•
cures of improvement were to be combined with that re-
lief; but also for another reason of no less importance.
We have at this moment in round numbers nearly
700,000 qualified electors in the United Kingdom. There
are some who think that this number is sufficiently large ;
there are others, and I am amongst them, who think
that it ought to be extended. But if any proposition were
made to diminish the present constituency—if it were pro-
posed to cut down the number of electors from 700,000 to
400,000—most assuredly such an attempt would be resisted
both by those who desired to adhere to the present franchise,
and by those who sought to enlarge it. Now, Sir, look for
one moment at the state of the facts, and you will see that
election by open voting is tantamount to a very great curtail-
ment of the existing legal franchise ; sou will see that is no-
thing less than a sentence of practical disfrancliiaement to
hundreds and thousands of electors —( Hear, hear.) It is
well known that there is in every constituency a considerahl"
()action of electois who decline to exercise their political
lianehise at all, because they cannot exercise it without giving
serious offence to those whose good-will they dread to forfeit.
—(Cheers.) And, with regard to many of those who do
vote, give me leave to ask, what is the difference between
taking away a man's vote altogether, and ,taking away front
him the liberty of voting as he himsalf inwardly prefers ?
What, is the difference between depriving a man of his
franchise and depriving him of that free agencywhich
is essential to the very idea and meaning of - the fran-
el:ise ? Is not the on nber of genuine and bona yids
electois just as much lessened by the one act as the
other ? Sir, it is but too plain that by condemning
electors to vote openly, you practically extinguish free will
and free choice in a very large proportion of them—perhaps
not less than one-third of the whole ; and you thus reduce
the legal franchise, for all practical and public purposes, to
ground,only -
then,r
f.
thatits
appealextent.both
to those who desire ex-
It is upon this special
tensiiai of the suffrage and to those who oppose it, and call
upon both of them to suisport nay present proposition, It

-must he alike the study of both that the present franchise shall I prime fabricator of this poisoned weapon. I desire to re- •
not be abridged, nor the present voters practically disfran- press election abuses equally and impartially, let them be corn-
chiaed. And, though they may differ on the point of further I mitted by whom they may.—(Loud cheers.) But who can
extension, at least let them join with me in procuring for voters believe, while such complaints resound on all sides, and while
that measure of protection which is essential to preserve the the evils complained of remain not only unredressed, but
present extent of the franchise, without restriction or curtail- even unheeded, that this House really represents the free
reent—at least let them guard the votes of the poorer electors sentiments of the electoral body of this kingdom ? If there
from being sucked up into the patrimony of the richer.-- be any one still credulous enough to suppose that the tee ( Hear, hear.) We are accustomed to boast, Sir, that we presentative System as it now stands is pure °tom coercion
possess a representative Government—that the people of this
tl—e that this is a delusion
or intlMidation, we may be very si country dwell under laws made by their own representatives which cannot be very widely extended, when we find both
in Parliament. Now, as to the main purposes of are re: Whigs and Tories uniting to proclaim the crentrary..—( Heat-. )
tive Government, I believe there is little difference of opinion. No ingenuity can longer uphold such an imposture in lieu
The object is to get a House of Commons possessing the con- national mind. It is but too plainly seen—it is but too pain-
fidence of the people, chosen by the free and deliberate prefer- fully felt—by what weapons a contested election is now con -
ence of their various constituencies, and recommended to the ducted or helped forward. Watch the proceeding.; of a land-
esteem of the nation at large by the public certainty that they lord with his tenants, of reistomers with their tradesmen, of
have been thus preferred.—( Hear, hear, hear.) This is employers with their labourers, and you will see the miserable
the grand object for the attainment of which the people are motives by which men of power seek to press the electors into
called upon to go through the harassing and costly business their service, and to extinguish in them all sense of public
of a general election. If your election does not bring out the obligation.—(Cheers.) They have the means of making the
genuine, unbought, unconstrained sentiments of the voters— condition of an elector better or worse, and this is the source
if it is not publicly known to bring out this result and no of their empire over his will—an empire which I once heard
other—you might as well have no election at all ; the institu - described in language of emphatic insolence by an English
tion is a deceit and a failure.—( Cheers.) Such is the object Dives, " Where I give custom I expect allegiance."—( Hear,
and intention of a representative system. And now I ask hear.) It seems to be the standing belief among landlords,
the House whether this object is really attained ? Does the
that the vote belonging to the occupier of their farm is as
practical working of English elections
produce that result for much their property as the buildings erected on the farm. which alone representation exists? Does it afford to the
Some landlords are generous enottk,4l to content themselves
nation at large legitimate ground for confidence in the mem- with one of the tenant's votes at their bidding, leaving him the
hers assembled within these walls ? I affirm that it does not, others to dispose of as he chooses. The few landlords who treat
faces by which election returns are now effected to
and that it cannot. Sufficient evidence exists of the
prae- the tenant as if he had a political judgment and conscience
de- of his own are rare and honourable exceptions, and are de-
prive the existing system of all title to national esteem servedly chronicled as such in the public prints.—( Hear, bear. )
and attachment. It is not in truth and in fact, and in I wish that it were possible to lay before Parliament a re-
(Hthe faithful use of the words, a representative system.— turn of the nurel,er of ejectments, notices to quit, changes of
ear, hear.) The characteristic properties of a represen- dealing, ands dismissals from employment, which have taken
tative system are subdued and paralyzed by a vicious mode place in consequence of the late election.—(Loud cries of
of workine. It is a system which still preserves the baneful hear.) Most assuredly the total number would he large
principle of' nomination, varied indeed in the manner of its and remarkable, considering that hi the town of Grantham
application, but unaltered in substance—the principle whel:eb) alone, Lord Huntingtower sent thirty-seven notices to quit
the choice is dictated by one person and the vote give;, by an- to his various tenants. And, be it observed, that the num-
other, which the Reform Act professed to have expelled for bar of hardships of this sort actually inflicted forms but an
ever.—(Cheers.) I do not mean, of course, to der, that infinitely small proportion of the cases of undue interfer-
many votes are given, and that too of all shades of political once •; for they are the instances of persons open to in-
party, which are perfectly unexceptionable in every point of wae the courage to disobey threats, and brave the
view, and which express noth..rng but the fair and genuine consequences; and if these be numerous, how, much more sentiments of of the electors, But Ido mean to assert, that, merous are the instances of those who submit ? We know well
with respect to a lare2 proportion of electors, and a large that where the law forbids any act on penalty of a moderate
proportion of votee, this is the very reverse of the truth. fine, for one person who is made to pay the fine, a thousand
Both corruptiota of voters, and dependence of voters, defile
are deterred from committing the forbidden act, and it is upon
the electoral atmosphere to a lamentable extent—the hop this fundamental supposition, that the advantage of prohibi-
suppre es
of one clases, the fears of another, are called in, to the entire tory laws is calculated. But if this is true when the law `esion of honest and unbiassed political
sopreference._ threatens only a small fine, how much more true is it when
( Hear, hear.) Large numbers of voters are placed with self appointed dictators are enabled to threaten serious loss,
regard to other men, that their vote at an open
poll can be
Considered as nothing better than the delivery of a mess and often absolute ruin ? You disfranchise altogether men
ege who have in the Customs in the Excise,be
employments -
from a s •
uperior—the voice of servility or fear, instead of the cause the law presumes that cannot vote independently
genuine judgment of a self-determined citizen, The preva. of the Government which • theyandthem. F 1
appoints removes o -
lance of there practices is almost as notorious as the most
presumption,ac_ of
and calculate the thousands an
low out this el ten
knowledged facts of English history, I believe that the diffi- thousands ofrotrswho are no less dependent on private pa-
these overruling influences ; but this much at least is un-
. will then be able to appreciate the fearful extent to which con-
questionable, that they prevail to such an extent as to vitiate strained and insincere voting pervades your representative sys-
altogether the fidelity of the total result, and to deprive the tern. The vote of an elector' thus under control is no way
House of Common: of all solid evidence that its Members beneficial to the country, because it carries no new substantive
really emanate from the bona fide suffrages of the people.— choice into the national aggregate, and amounts to Nothing
( Hear, hear.) I should have imagined that the general better than a duplication of'thevete of the patron.--( Hear.)
accuracy of *what I have just related would have been suffi-
ciently And to the voter himself, assuming the absence of smiler por-
ing—especially -made out by proofs which are now of long stand- poses, what is the value of the privilege ? In numberless
ing—especially by the evidence taken before the Committee cases the franchiseis felt and hated as a burden ; and if any
. .
on Bribery and Intimidation, appointed during the last man doubts this, the bitter experience and the humiliating an-
Parliament—a body of evidence fraught with mei ewers of a canvass will be quite sufficient to teach it him.
choly instruction concerning the actual working of our eve
"" indeed, should doubt it ? What value can a man set
y,
representative system. To that I have often referred, and
d othin but a galls
a privilege which conveys to his min n g
shall often refer again ; and I am sorry to say that it has 11-
ing sense of degradation—a feeling that he has a preference
now been suffered to remain near three years on the table
7 I believe most firmly
to which he dares not give effect . .
of the house, without the smallest attempt made b autho-
fective public working and un-
rity to provide a remedy for the enormous aim which
it that over and above the de
discloses.--( Hear, hear.) But this important abuses
' faithfully national result of the present .
representative sys-
-Iwhich elections
not left to stand alone. The last elections have beenmonyl " tern, if we measure the extent of private evi
which they
replete with proofs of the gar, mostunwarrantableno less
now occasion—if we regard the disastrous twilight
.n."s- shed over all the relations of social life—the tyranny on the
chiefs, attested by the coneearrent and unanimous
the part of
of all political parties without exception.This,complaints part of the great, the struggle to be tyrannical
the
art ot. the
in fact, the middling, and the reluctant submission on p
seems to be the only one point in whicall •
parties concur, loss and ruin entailed upon
humble—the fatal examples of
that bribery and, intimidation' have been widely •
diffused conscientious
behaviour and of success purchased by un-
and preenunertl net "try effective. The innumerable discourses of •
principled compliance—the discord and suspension of inter-
Candidates on the hustings during the election of last Au u t
and the factious riot
—the daily criminations and recriminations of all the Negwss- course between equals and neighbours,all
recurs in our bo-
paper-e_Whig, Tory, and Radical—all certify the virulence andu
hdisoarndder which now periodically recurs
contemplate this deplorable
of the evil, however much they may dispute about the ad. rCatalogue of social evil, the inevitable consequence of a
sasissibility of particular remedies. Indeed, it seems to me sharp contest by open voting, we shall find that on this
that in most cases parties are less anxious to repel the ground alone, even if there were no other, our elective sys-
charge from themselves than to fix the like charge upon tem cries loudly for amendment and regeneration. Dicere
their opponents. You have heard it constantly said, "We viz. possis, quam multi taha plorent l I predict with con-
knew that our opponents were intimidating on tneir side, fidence that the present elective system, if the liberty of the
therefore we were forced to do the same on ours ; but we have franchise still continues to be left without protection, must, in
not done so to anything like the same extent as the have."-- a short time, fall into the same state of degeneracy and dig
(Hear, hear.) Nulla innocentica curs, zed vices impunitatis,
1831.—( Hear, hear.) To
grace as the old system prior to
I can produce, from the declarations even of gentlemen who rescue it from this fate, it is a matter of urgent necessity to
are strenuously opposed to the Ballot, the strongest testi- adopt the best remedies in our power against the evils
monies to the efficacy and to the prevalence of intimidation at with which it is infested. Hear, hear, hear.) Tentanda
elections. Read, for example, the resolutions promulgated via eat ; I call upon the prudence, as well as the patriotism of
on the 30th of August last, by those gentlemen who originally those who supported the Reform Act when it was first pro-
commenced the Spottiswoode election subscription. They posed, and who hailed with warm enthusiasm the generous
proclaim, in the plainest and broadest terms, that freedom of purposes which it promised to accomplish—l call upon them
election in Ireland is altogether subverted b the system of to assist me in subduing those abuses which they both ac-
intimidation there established.—( Hear, heavy) Again, Mr. knowledge and lament.—( Cheers. ) Let me remind them
Taylor, of Birmingham, who proposed the Tory candidate, that in proposing the Ballot I do not contravene any one of
Mr. Stapleton, at that place, stated, publicly, on the hustings, the provisions, Ido not reverse any one of the principles, of
that he fully believed if votes had been taken by the Ballot the Reform Act.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord the
that Mr. Stapleton would have been returned Member for Member for Stroud, in the opening speech with which he
Birmingham. Here is the further testimony of a gentleman introduced the Reform Bill, in March, 18.31, expressly
to whom I am sure Honourable Members opposite will stated that the question respecting the best mode of taking
not refuse to pay attention. At the nomination at Edin- votes was one which he did not intend to enter upon or dc-
burgh, on Monday, July 31, 1837, Sir George Clerk termine.—( Hear, hear.) And by the subsequent speech of
said—" I will venture to appeal to the experience the Noble Lord, made last August at Stroud—( Loud cheers)
of every elector in the county, whether there has —and confirmed by the recent speech of Sir James Graham
not been infinitely more liberality and fairness on the
pat Carlisle, we learn that the Ballot formed part of the ori-
art of
the Conservatives than on that of those who arrogate to them- ginal scheme of the Reform Bill submitted to the Cabinet
selves the exclusive name of Liberals ?—( Opposition cheers) of Lord Grey, by those members of that Ministry upon
—and lam perfectly certain, if I could get their votes on the whom the task was devolved. Let it be remembered, too,
subject, I should have a largo majority in my favour. I main- that this original scheme was based upon a constituency of
tain that intimidation is more used against my friends than by twenty-pound householders, and not of ten-pound house-
any of my supporters • and I firmly believe that, looking only holders; and if the Ballot be required to protect voters of
at the personal consideration, or what was to be the effect in a higher qualification, it becomes doubly necessary to pro-
this Mid-Lothian election, I ought to be an advocate for the tect those of a lower.—( Hear, hear.) Besides, the alterations
Ballot; and that a much greater majority would be found in made in the Reform Bill in its progress through Parliament
favour of the Conservative candidates, both here and in other were all of such a nature as to strengthen the argument in
places, if the Ballot was adopted. It is not, therefore, on favour of the Ballot ; the strongest observations to this effect
personal grounds that I oppose the Ballot." And now, Sir, were made by Lord Althorp and others at the moment when
let me add the words of a Nobleman who will be peculiarly the clause giving votes to the fifty-pound tenants-at-will in I
listened to on this side of the House, and who agrees with Sir counties was carried by the House of Commons. So that the
George Clerk in opposing the Ballot. At the nomination at Reform Act, as it ultimately passed, stood far more in need
Tiverton, on Tuesday, July 23, 1837, Lord Palmerston ex of the safeguard of the Ballot than the Reform Bill as it was
pressed himself in this manner : "My belief is founded originally projected. I am quite sure that neither the pro.
not merely on what I have heard from others, but my own poser nor the supporters of the Reform Act could hare inten-
observations. My belief is, that a system has been extended to commit a deliberate fraud, by conferring votes on per-
sively pursued to deter the electors, by fear of injury to sons whom they knew to be dependent, and with the premedi-
themselves and their families, from doing that which we tated intention of debarring them from any free will of their
heard read this morning, to elect freely and indifferently the own. And with regard to the Noble Lord the Member for
persons whom they may think fit to represent them in Parlia- Stroud in particular, there are declarations of his on record
silent. Now, Gentlemen, this is not a solitary case, it is the expressing the strong repugnance which lie felt to the exten-
regular Tory practice—( Cheers from the Ministerial Benches, siue intimidation which forced itself upon his notice, and inti-
echoed back by the Opposition)—and you will hear, when mating that if this system should continue, the adoption of
you see the proceedings of the different elections, that the the Ballot as a remedial measure would become inevitable.
same thing has been practised whenever a Tory candidate has One extract I will quote from a speech made by the Noble Lord
opposed men of liberal and reforming principles."—( Hear. ) at Torquay in Seht., 1832. In that speech the Noble Lord,
Let me now cite another Tory witness. In reference to the after having-expressed his strong sense of the " terrible position"
late severe contested election in the West Riding of York- (as he terms it) of the landlords, and of the great power which
shire, the Tory Leeds Newspaper, the Leeds Intelligeneer• they had the means of exercising over their tenants, expresses
says that the Whig Lords forced their tenants to vote for Lord also his anxious hope that landlords would not avail themselves
Alorpeth and Sir George Strickland. " The Duke of Nor- ofthat power fully and extensively. The Noble Lord then states
folk's agents put on the screw with unusual severity I—( Loud his own strong objections against the Ballot, and proceeds thus : 1
laughter.) Lord Eitzwilliands did the same ; Lord Thanet's —" Great as I apprehend the inconvenience of the Ballot would
agents made the election a matter of life and death—(Great be, yet if it come to this, that I must either adopt such a
laughter)—the Duke of Devonshire's were not a whit behind measure, or that I must see the tenantry of England ranged at
—( Opposition cheers)—and Lord Burlington's insisted that elections contrary to the feelings and wishes of themselves, I
promises given to Mr. Wortley should be violated under should have no hesitation-_I should have no doubt—l should
penalties which the poor tenants understood too well."— renounce my previous opinions, and I should at once adopt the
( Hear, hear, and cheers.) Having heard the Tory e'er- Vote by Ballot." Five years and a half have elapsed since
sion of the election in the West Riding of York, let us the Noble Lord made the memorable speech to which I have
see what is the Whig account of this same contest, and of just referred. There have been two general elections since
another important county election in August last. At a that period, and a great many separate and individual clec-
public dinner on Friday, October 13, 1837, to celebrate the tions : a large body of experience has been acquired, extensive
re-election of Lord Morpeth and Sir George Strickland for means of judgment have been brought within our reach, re-
the West Riding of Yorkshire, and given by the Liberals of sporting the causes on which success and defeat at an election
Doncaster, Lord Milton spoke of the causes of his defeat in now turns. I ask what the result of that experience has
North Northamptonshire :—" My opponents came against been ? Has it tended to show that the " terrible position
me with all the power of the Tory landlords, and all the and power" which the Noble Lord recognised as lodged in
power of the parsons; and, gentlemen, they beat me. But the hands of landlords over their tenants has remained un-
in the West Riding it was different. Here you come used—a sheathed weapon, rendered harmless by the gene-
against them with the irresistible power of popular intelli- rosity of the wearer ?—( Hear, hear.) Or has experience
genre—( Opposition laughter)—intelligence resulting from proved that the landlords of England have not been con
the wealth which you have industriously accumulated. And tent with simply possessing that power, but have used it
what has been the end of this intelligence ? Why, that you abundantly and unsparingly, and that too for the very pur-
have returned for the West Riding two Liberal Members poses which the Noble Lord here so unequivocally repro-
to serve in the House of Commons. On the contrary, North bates—for the purpose of compelling and coercing the
Northamptonshire has sent two Tories, not to represent the rotes of their tenantry ?—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) On
constituency of that county, for they will most certainly mis- which side has been the verdict of experience ? I might
represent the great majority of its inhabitants. I know full answer in the words of Lord Dinorben, spoken at the public
well, for I witnessed it on my canvass, what was the real dinner in Flintshire ; of Sir James Gibson Craig, at Edin-
feeling of that county. I saw that the number of my colours burgh ;of Sir Colman Rashleigh, in Cornwall ; of my Hon.
was at least one hundred to one—(loud laughter)—to the Friend, the Member for 'West Surrey, at Guildford; and of
colours of my opponent; bat notwithstanding that strong maxi- several other Gentlemen of strictly Whig politics, who have
festation of the opinion of the people in my favour, the in- been induced by that very experience to abandon their ob-
fluence of the Tory landlords, as I have said before, con- jections against the Ballot—objections originally quite as
signed me to defeat, and left me in possession of the borough strong as those entertained by the Noble Lord, the Member
which I have now the honour to represent." I could easily for Stroud, himself.—(Loud cheers.) I might answer in the
multiply testimonies of this kind if I were not afraid of fa- words of the numerous petitions in favour of the Ballot which
tiguing the House ; but I think I have produced enough for have been laid upon your table, many of them signed by per-
the purpose of my argument. Be it remembered that these sons who were not in favour of the Ballot five years ago; and
are not the declarations of Radicals—not the declarations even amongst those petitions the Noble Lord will not forget the
of gentlemen friendly to the Ballot—they come from Whigs petition from the inhabitants of Stroud, his own constituents,
and Tories, both strongly opposing the Ballot, and both in- signed by 2,100 persons, including more thaa 500 electors of
voluntarily testifying the crying necessity that exists for some that borough, and a large proportion of his own friends and
remedy equivalent to the Ballot. I shall not surely be sus- supporters.--( Hear, hear.) Sure I am that for all those
peeled of exaggerations when I say no more than has been said who, at the passing of the Reform Act, held their minds
before me by Lord Palmerston and Sir George Clerk. "a ou open to be convinced by experience whether the protection
may
tell me that I quote defeated candidates. What if Ido ? of the Ballot was or was not required, the subsequent ex-
Defeated candidates are not for that reason deprived of their perience has spoken with a voice too plain to be mistaken,
be unheard. I have
may perhaps exaggerate the comparative effect too loud to . said that the Ballot in no way
wits. They
of in real operation ; bat they do not conjure up ficti- contradicts either the scope or the enactments of the Reform Act.
causes
for their defeat. Do we ever hear But Igo farther : I contend that the supporters of the Reform Act,
tious and imaginary causes
of justice, though they may if they wish to insure the efficacious and creditable working of
Suitors who are defeated in a court . . . .
and mortification—do we hear them their own measure—if they wish to reap the good which they
suffer the greatest anguish
fact that the judge was have themselves sown, must inevitably
strengthen the Act
ascribing the loss of their cause to the
bribed or the jury intimidated.—( Hear.) Why, then, do de- with new defences against the briber and intimidator ; they
reference to must adopt the inexpugnable safeguard of the secret vote. It
footed candidates at an election make perpetual .
man concerned is their only chance for preserving the Reform Act from con-
inbribery or intimidation ?It is because every , .
or the losing side,andand,
tempt rottenness ; indeed, when I look at the pre-
elections, whether on the winning
and powerful amble of the Reform Act, I find the words not
only consist-
andknows well that these causes are of constant
notorious efficacy. It is immaterial to my
argument
ent with the proposition of the Ballot, but absolutely such as
ida it is impossible and
to satisfy comply with, under the open
which of the various parties in the State employs intim -
Lion with the most unsparing hand, or which may be the mode of voting. For what are the words of the preamble ?

" Whereas it is expedient fo efleck alnAei in eleetions,, and to
diminish the expensei of elections." These are thepHecipal
items } and let me ask, have election, abuses been checked :e
a tint,
The universal voice of England, confirmed be Ole blvidence
taken before you
,own Parliamentary Committee, attests that
they have
Haee the expenses of elections beon dimi.
nish , r Alas I for humOrn feTcsight. T believe most firmly;
and I think I should find tn}eelf beetle out by thu authority of
the best informed elections agehte; that as much mohey in the
aggregate has beep spent in the last twig elections, as ever was
known on similar occasions before.—( Hear, hear.) I confi-
dently assert that the effects of the Reform Act have not been
correspondent to its preamble, and that, if it is intended that
they sheettlet ever become so correspondent, this can only
happen by the aid of the Ballot.—( Hear, hear.) In fact,
to say that the Ballot is a proposition inconsistent with the
principles of the Reform Act, is merely to affirm in other
words that bribery and intimidation are part and parcel of
the Reform Act.—( Hear, hear. ) lam sure that its sincere
partisans will be slow to stamp it with such indelible ignominy.
Why do I say that the Ballot will achieve the mighty
work specified in the preamble of the Reform Act, and
which the Reform Act itself has failed to achieve—the
work of checking abuses and diminishing expense at
elections? I say so, because all this outlay and all these
abuses assume the publicity of indisidual votes as an essential
condition. There are two leading varieties of election abuse
—intimidation and bribery ; intimidation, be it recollected, by
far the most extensively practised of the two, because it
costs nothing to the intimidator, while bribery necessarily in-
volves a sacrifice to the briber. Now I maintain that it is
a manifest absurdity either to threaten a man with evil or to
tempt him with a gift, conditionally upon his performing
any given act, when the act is of such a nature that you can
never know whether he does it or not.—( Hear, hear.) The
secrecy of the act places it out of the reach both of reward
and punishment. When an elector votes in secret, it is ab-
solutely impossible that he can be made either to incur loss
or to gain profit in consequence of the way in which his
vote is given. It is perfectly well known that in all human
enactments the clearest prohibitions and the sharpest penalties
are a nullity when you can obtain no evidence to enable you
to distinguish between obedience and evasion ; nor has despo-
tism in its wildest freaks ever gone so far as to believe that it
could effectually interdict, or effectually command, any acts
which were in their nature secret. Here stands the impassa-
ble limit to human authority in its efforts to restrain the liberty
of mankind : it must have evidence to proceed upon, arising
out of the modes of conduct which it condemns and desires to
suppress. I think that the proposition which I have just stated
is too obvious to need farther illustration. It is a trite apho-
rism of Lard Bacon, that knowledge is power; and the asser-
tion analogous to this is still more true, that absence of know-
ledge is absence of power. Now my purpose is to deprive the
intimidator of all his power over votes—( Loud cheers)—and
I do so by excluding him from all knowledge of the way in
which votes are given. —( Renewed cheers.) This is a me-
thod at once simple and infallible : and there is no other
method which can advance you one step towards the result.
You may try what other schemes you please—you may reason
with the intimidator—you may try to soothe or cajole him—
you may raise the cry of indignant shame against him—you
may hold out to him the prospect of legal penalties. Believe
me, intimidation is a practice far too gentlemanlike and
fashionable to be subdued by such leaden weapons as these. It
is the inmate of courts and manor houses—the cherished
companion of lordly bosoms—all the pride of wealth
and rank, and all the fierceness of political bigotry conspire to
uphold it ; the clergyman who discourses eloquently in the
pulpit on charity and forgiveness of enemies, neither enjoins
nor manifests any such dispositions during a contested elec-
tion—(Loud cheers)—even ladies of high fashion are not
ashamed to direct with their own delicate hands the instant dis-
continuance of a tradesman who has dared to vote for the
shocking Radical.—( Cheers.) Against intimidators sustained
by the sympathy and example of all that is great and power-
ful you can do nothing, except by rendering intimidation me-
chanically impossible.—( Hear, hear.) You cannot deprive
them of their weapons of offence, but you may withdraw the
voter out of their reach, and thus smite them with blindness.—
( Cheers.) I assert, without reserve, that the Ballot will ac-
complish this object—that it will render intimidation altogether
impracticable, mid that no ingenuity can disappoint its working.
Those who now dictate votes by means of the servile and sel-
fish fears of electors, must be content to resort to methods of
guidance more consistent with the free will of a reasonable
man and the dignity of a fellow-citizen.—( Hear, hear.)
There are many of them who can employ these gentler me-
thods with perfect success, and who well know how to find their
way to an elector's understanding, when the instruments for
forcing his will are snatched from their grasp. And those
who disdain to substitute persuasion for control, when the Bal-
lot shall have bceished the angry and tyrannical passsions
from the field of election, will be loft, as they ought
to be, to impotent and unavailing complaints.—(Cheers.)
Some persons, not altogether averse to the Ballot, maintain,
nevertheless, that secret voting will be inoperative to any
good purpose, unless you can at the same time prohibit and
prevent canvassing; they say further, that canvassing will
still be practised, even when votes are taken in secret. To
this I have to reply, that the word "canvassing" is of very
equivocal import ; it includes something which is harmless
and even ind.spensable,—much that is revolting and odious.
It is certain that active exertion must be used by some one
to make known the name and pretensions oi,,,eandidate, and
to ascertain how they are received throughout a constituency.
This is a task which must be undertaken by some persons
who are ,known in the locality : and thus, in a certain
sense, you have a Committee and a canvass, even though
voting should be carried on by Ballot. The canvasser would
go forth to consult the prevailing sentiment, to communicate
the necessary information, to rectify mistakes, and to call-
vince as well as he could those who were adverse. But the
odious part of the practice begins beyond these limits;
it is peculiar to the present system of open voting, and
can have no existence under the Ballot. It is when your can-
vassers are not content with trying to convince an elector's
understanding, but seek to work upon his will; when they
try to importune him into a pledge which his conscience will
not allow him to give ; when they assail his imagination
by motives of worldly interest, by the fear of losing the fa-
vours of one man, by the hope of gaining the patronage of
another. It is when the customer or the landlord appears
in person or by his deputy—( Hear, hear, hear)—concealing
the stringency of command under the modest form of a po-
lite request.
" Te semper anteit sceva necessitas,
Clavos trabale set cuneos manu
Gestansahona."
There is no scene on the face of the earth in which the ha-
rassing and ungenerous arts of enforcing constrained com-
pliance are more skilfully practised than an English election.
There are some men who abhor these acts as they
deserve ;
there are still more who profess to abhor them ; and I main-
tain that both one and the other ought to join IN ith me in in-
troducing the vote by Ballot. For of what use is it to forge
all these snares when the vote after all must be the expression
of the voter's free will—when you cannot by any force or
any artifice subvert his ultimate independence ? In order
to prevail upon him to vote with you, you must induce
him to feel and think with you ; and for this purpose the
importunity and screwing of the present canvass, the soli-
citations of the customer, or the threats of the landlord,
will not be only unveiling but injurious. Even now, when
canvassers approach a man of independent position, upon
whom they cannot in any way bring the screw to bear,
the application becomes divested of all its most objection-
able,
elements; it would be equally unobjectionable with
regard to every voter, without exception, if votes were
taken by Ballot ; for secrecy makes all voters, poor as
well as rich, equally and completely independent. ( Cheers. )
When I am asked, sir, whether the Ballot will put down can-
vassing, I reply, that it will
put down the bad part of canvass-
,
ing ; it will abolish the imperative and the seductive canvass-
ing, which addresses itself
to the hopes and fears of electors ;
it will still leave the persuasive canvassing, which addresses
itself to their reason and affections.—(Cheers.) But, then, I
am told that the protection imparted by the Ballot supposes
that the voter violates his promise. "We do not inquire,
ea the prm ise ;
(saythe
wohbjicehctohrasvewphorecuesed this, argument) into the circum-
stanceshas once made it he ought to keep it at all prices; and any
scheme which implies that ho breaks his promise includes a
degree of moral mischief which in our view overbalances all
engageaugnadienrst
mtpoeen. showvoßt thatnu tg let itm me first
universallyfialrtsot gaesktkh:pe
how
on:uygsatt but after a voter
the benefits of independent voting." This is the argument
chiefly insisted upon by those who oppose the Ballot; and I
re-
gard to broken promises at present? Are election promises
tahener yd
voterst h ace a objectionfnawehto
them ? Are no attempts now made to • induce voters to break
promises once given? Are voters safe from all hazard if
imakea k
e
they faithfully perform their promises ? Sir, when come to
answer these questions accurately, we shall find that,we as the
case stands now, election promises are not constantly kept,
but very frequently broken ; that the reason why they
are so
broken is because bribers and intimidators do all
they can to
induce the voters to break them; that voters are not in the
least protected from hazard by the known fact that they have
already bound themselves by a distinct promise.—( Hear.)
Suppose an elector dependent in his position, a tenant or a
tradesman, under the present system of open voting, to pro-
mise his vote to that candidate whose principles he approves
and prefers, is he for that reason one whit the less impor-
tuned and menaced by those upon whom he is dependent ?
Do they regard the promise as inviolably binding, and the vote
as a step already foreclosed and predetermined, so that it
would be criminal in them to attempt to disturb it? Doubt-
less there are some gentlemen who eldest •am this feeling,
and act upon it ; but I do not scruple to assert that, for one
man who feels thus, there are fifty who feel the contrary.—
( Cheers.) A gentleman says to his servant when the
Westminster election is coming on, " John, go round to my
tradesmen, and let them know that I am very anxious for the
success of Sir George Murray, and that I hope they will
give him their votes at this election.", " Yes, sir ;
but what shall I say if any of them tell me that they have
already promised their votes to Leader and Evans ?" " Oh ! I
can't help that : you must tell them they must oblige me this
once, and that if they vote for these Radicals I won't deal with
them any longer." Again, what is the behaviour of a country
gentleman when the Tory canvassers come and tell him, " Sir,
we have been canvassing in your neighbourhood, and Farmer
So and So, your tenant, tells us that he has already promised
his vote to the Radical candidate." " Promised his vote to
the Radical candidate I why, what right bad he to promise it
at all—( Cheers)—without waiting to know whom I support ?
Oh you need not be afraid that his vote will be given against
you ; I will go and talk to him ; the promise is all stuff and
nonsense."—( Cheers.) Sir, this is a faithful picture, how-
ever disagreeable and humiliating, of that which now occurs at
a contested election.—( Cheers from the Ministerial benches,
answered by cries of " No, no !" from the Opposition.) I say
again, sir, in spite of the denial of the Hon. Gentlemen oppo-
site, that this is a faithful specimen of what now occurs.—