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

worked in the United States. If they adopted the Ballot, ti
was satisfied that the result would be that they would make
honesty appear to be the worst policy for an elector to pursue,
and at the same time legalize a system of deception.
Mr. JA ME S—After the eloquent and powerful spezclies of
the Hon. Mover and Hon. Seconder of the mutton, and after
the able manner in which the question had been argued by the
liberal part of the press of this country, it was a matter of
difficulty to make any new observations on the ;übject ; and
be, therefore, should not have trespassed on the attention of
the House on the present occasion if he had not felt a Very
deep interest in the subject. The Ballot, he was convinced,
was essential to the protection of the voter in the exercise of
his elective right, and which, if the people of this country
possessed at all, they should be allowed to exercise according
to the dictates of their own consciences, and not in conformity
with the commands of other men. He some years ago pre-
sented a petition from a place in the north of England in fa.
vour of the Ballot, and when he declared himself fa-
vourable to the prayer of the petition, his observations were
received with shouts of laughter. At that period the sup-
porters of the Ballot in that House were extremely few
in number, and one of those persons was the late Mr.
Ricardo, the distinguished political economist, who told
him (Mr. James) on his resuming his scat not to be dis-
couraged, for he was convinced that if he lived even not many
years he would see the Ballot become the law of the land.—
( Hear, hear.) The number of the advocates of the Ballot,
both within and out of the House, had greatly increased, and
he did not despair of seeing it become the law of the land.—
(Hear, hear.) He said this with perfect confidence, seeing
as he did that it was supported by the large proportion of the
intelligent classes out of the House, and supported also in the
House, not only by the philosophical Radicals, but by the un-
philosophical Radicals, and by a few stray Whigs and Whig_
Radicals, and perhaps by one or two Tories.—(Laughter, and
hear, hear.) The Ballot, he was satisfied, would destroy,
more than anything else that could be devised, that system of
intimidation which obtained so much at the elections, and
which was so fearlessly used at the late election. If nothing
else had convinced him of the necessity of the Ballot, what
had occurred at the last election for Cumberland, would be
amply sufficient for that purpose. The large body of the
electors of that county were small freeholders, but there
were also several tenants at will. Many of the latter had
signed the requisition to him a.nd his honourable colleague,
but were by their landlord, called upon to vote for his right
honourable opponent. Some of them did so, but stated that
they had not changed their opinion, and that they would not
vote for the Right Honourable Baronet if they had not been
sure that he would not be returned. They also stated that
they were afraid of opposing their landlords, who, if they did,
would en.neavour to do them some injury. Others, however,
persisted in voting for the Liberal candidate; and the conse-
Aooenee was, that they received immediate notice to quit their
rms, upon which many of them had laid out large sums of
money in improvements.—(Cries of " Name, name.") He
would at once say that if the returning officer had not
done so himself, at least his steward had been guilty of
such conduct. Should such an opinion be allowed to
continue, by which a man could be compelled to vote
against his conscientious convictions ? To many thousand
electors it was a matter of no consequence whether it was
known or not which way they exercised their elective fran-
chise; but to the great body of electors it was of essential
import, as regarded their interests and prosperity in life, that
it should not be known which way they voted. The Ballot was
said to be an innovation ; but were not all improvements
called innovations in the first instance? This was said with
respect to the Reform Bill, which was now admitted by
gentlemen opposite to have been an improvement.—(" No,
no," from the Opposition Benches.) Did not the Right
Hon, and Learned Member for Ripon, one of the most able
men on the benches opposite, state a few nights ago that he
was prepared to stand by the Reform Bill ? He had always
hitherto voted for the Ballot, and he should continue to do so
till he heard of a better plan being devised to protect the voter
in the free exercise of the elective franchise.—( Hear.)
Mr. G. H. CAVENDISH was understood to say, that it
was impossible to deny that many Gentlemen, formerly op-
posed to the Ballot, had become favourable to it, in conse-
quence of the extent to which bribery and intimidation had
been carried at the last election. The arguments in favour
of the plan had, however, failed in convincing him of the
Propriety of adopting it ; but he confessed that it was with
great reluctance that he had brought himself to vote against a
measure that was the only one that had been brought forward
as a measure of protection against the evils he had just al-
luded to ; he, however, felt bound to do so, as he was satis-
fied that the adoption of the Ballot would produce much
greater evils than were at experienced. He doubted
whether the system could be adopted without a great exten-
sion of the Suffrage, and this would be conceded without a
correspondent increase of political knowledge in the people.
Again, under the Ballot, a great many unqualified persons
would get placed in the register of voters, as that would not
be watched and scrutinised as it was at present; and also
Many would appear and exercise the right of voting who
had no claim to it, by representing themselves as persona
whil really possessed the elective franchise, and no remedy
rras provided to prevent this under a system of vote by Ballot.
Again, he did not think that it was expedient or desir-
able that so great a change should be carried into effect
so soon after the passing if the Reform Bill.—( Hear, hear.)
He also contended that the Ballot would not be an effectual
protection against bribery ; above all, in small constituencies.
As far as the machinery of the Ballot was concerned, be did
;tot think that there could be any very great difficulty, but the
landlord would still have the power of controlling his tenants,
and would easily defeat the object of the Ballot—namely, af-
'ording a security for secret voting. The influence of pro-
perty would continue to exist, and would continuo to be exer-
Cited. Lord Brougham, in 1830, used some most powerful
arguments against the Ballot, which had made a great im-
pression on his mind, and he would quote an extract from
the speech of that eloquent person :—" All facts show eil
eery clearly how groundless was the expectation that elec-
tion by Ballot would accomplish the purpose in view. But
here he might be permitted to ask, with much deference
to his Honourable and Learned Friend, and these who
agreed with him on the subject, whether, though it must
fail in this respect, it might not, at the same time, fully
accomplish one of the blackest and foulest purposes of any
that could debase and destroy the character of man? Whether
it would not make a hypocrite of a man throughout the whole
Period of his existence ? Whether it would not, as was
forcibly described by an eminent writer, make him exist as a
Person whose

Whole life was one continued lie ?'
Bach a person must be perpetually on the watch against his
Warmest friends and closest connexions; always tremblingly
afraid to betray a secret, the discovery of which would be
equally fatal to his interests and character. This was no-
thing more nor less than to lead a life of deception and fraud
to the last moment of human existence. The character of
an individual thus circumstanced was true only in its hypo-
crisy. The man who could for months conceal the manner in
Which he had voted—who could hold his tongue on that
Itihject which was the universal topic of conversation—
"ho could keep his secret from his friend and his wife—who
lould never mention it even at the alehouse, would be
Would
aise to his country and his friend, and could neither be true
nor faithful in any of the relations of life ; nor would men be-
lieve him true, unless human thought were subverted. The
result would be, either that the Ballot would be altogether
tlleffectual, or it would be a little effectual ; for it could never
be very effectual, and that little efficacy would be purchased
y the fearful sacrifices which he had endeavoured to depict."
tie admitted, however, that the evils of bribery and intimi-
dation had increased since the time these observations were
'bade, and he believed that the disposition had increased to
punish the poorer voters, who gave an independent vote ; and
he sincerely wished that her Majesty's Government would
bring forward some measure as a remedy, and to serve as a
Protection to this class of voters. —( Hear, hear.) In conclu-
sion, he should give his vote against the measure, which was
endl°l4; ago described by Lord Brougham as being ineffectual,
anti which never could be effectual for anything but that
which must be stamped as insincerity.—( Hear, hear.)
Lord SANDON was anxious that lion. Members on his
side of the House should co-operate with the Members of her
Majesty's Government in opposing a proposition for the adop-
tion of a system of secret voting. With respect to the charge
/wide respecting the increase of bribery and intimidation at the
last election, he denied that there was any truth in the asser-
tion that the results of the elections were affected by those
practices ; on the contrary, he believed the increased return
of Members on his (the Opposition) side of the House had
been the result of a change of opinion on the part of the
voters. Hon. Members opposite seemed to think that the
Whole essence of men's political lives consisted in their voting,
d that nothing was known of their political opinions from
any thing else. The Ballot had answered neither in France
nor in America. Four or five years a(ro, President Jackson
(:,xPressly admitted tint the Joint-Stoclf Banks throughout the
United States exercised a very powerful influence in the elec-
tions. He (Lord Sandon) trusted that the character of this
onntry would never be so degraded that one man should re-
fuse to tell another how he had exercised the franch'se en-
'lusted to him. Both for intimidation and for corruption
there was a moral remedy, and lie believed that even now he
saw symptoms of a general desire on the part of persons pos-
s,lessing influence over others to exercise that influence with
'elicacy anti tenderness.—( Loud laughter.)
th Mr. E. LYTTON BULWER was not one of those who
if,;:i4
oght that the Reform Bill was not a great agavechange. If it did nothing else, :t peacen to
" country—if it did nothing else, it quelled discontent
taV Perhaps prevented revolution. But it did more than
- s• All the power that it took from certain families, whose
Interest was distinct from thut of the community, it gave to
itte middle classes, to the shopkeepers, the traders, to men
n"° had the most vital interest in the economy, the corn-
Ll'ce, the good order, and the general tranquillity of the
Bill;
He was not, therefore, ungrateful for the Reform
'; he did not desire to have a new Reform Bill ; he was
d:ttaair,xious to agitate and unsettle the country with all the
Stasis of some new measure—to create a new consti-
tuencyw and effect a new distribution of political power. He
matey
inclined theoretically to a more extended suffrage than
at present possessed. He thought in general that the
cier
tur the suffrage the broader the foundations of our insti-
of 'a; but he had many objections to the popular scheme
II household Suffrage, on which he would not then enter.
NI, "'as willing to take his stand upon the present Reform
1, freed from all the limitations and restrictions which at
iir.esent disfranchised many of those who were intended by
there Reform Bill to vote in elections. The Ballot was not,
4iet_lorF: an encroachment of the popular power ; it was
''Y intended to protect the power the people had already
tcquired•—( Hear, hear.) The object of the Reform Bill was
; give free and independent votes to the middle and a large
tr,°":4l of the industrious classes ; the object of the Ballot was
insure that freedom, and protect that independence._
ear. hear.) He wished to impress on the Noble Lord the

t Member for Stroud this point—the exercise of a vote was not
merely a political right,—that expreOion of his opinibiia itat a
morel and religious right ta4 te 'alector ' it, belboie'd juat as
knownteur,h.—y
blow why, if the Noble ttom and this House formerly thought
it unjust for the Churchmen to prescribe a mere form of words
t ol lig
unjust
jru. )st
fora
wantedcustomer to
much to liberty of etraaraiCnee as any rigli .Orrnerly contended
if,0:.,,7 byTact::
to the Disaanter, which the Dissenter's conscience objected to,
it Hs
should car, hear.)
ue
to prescribe to bia tradesman the exact substance of opinions
which the tradesman's conscience would not subscribe to.—
( Chaers. ) If (continued the Honourable Gentleman) you
:bought it right to free conscience from control in the one
Case, with what face can you contend that it is not right to free
the conscience from dictation in the other?—(Cheers.) Take
one of your new constituency—a householder, a tradesman--
suppose that he has endeavoured to the utmost to carry the
principle of your own Reform Bill into effect, to fit himself
for the exercise of the right you confer upon him—suppose
he takes the liveliest interest in politics, watches our pro-
ceedings, forms an ardent interest in all that concerns his
country, and comes with all care and deliberation to a judg-
ment as to the policy he will support—is it the object of your
Reform Bill—is it consistent with common liberty that an-
other man should step up to him and say, " Your public feeling
it to vote one way--your conscience urges you to it ; but, if
you do not vote the other way, I will take the money out of
your pocket, or the bread out of your mouth ?"—( Hear, hear.)
Is this an uncommon thing ? Does not the whole hideous
evidence of your own bribery and intimidation Committee—
does not every newspaper—does not every man who has
stood an election inform us that there is not a single town
in which all the batteries of intimidation and exclusive deal-
ing are not brought to hear against conscientious opinion and
constitutional right ? Observe, too, that it is exactly in
proportion as the man, if he vote against his interest, is
honest, zealous, disinterested, public spirited, that he is
singled out as the victim of punishment. The lukewarm,
selfish, corrupted elector goes free, and the generous, high-
minded elector is punished for the very virtue he exhibits.
--( Hear.) And how are we received when we complain of
this ? Oh, say Hon. Gentlemen, you must not deprive
virtue of its incitements ; it is a very fine thing this po-
litical martyrdom : would you take away all the heroism of
suffering? The Hon. Member for Wiltshire has talked of
public virtue : was it ever heard before that it was the busi-
ness of a State to establish punishment and persecution for
public virtue—to array private interests against political ho-
nesty, and to call upon men to be citizens to-day, in order that
they may be martyrs to-morrow ?—( Hear, hear.) The whole
trading part of the constituency, continued the Hon. Gentle-
man, call out with one voice for the protection of the Ballot.
And what are the arguments by which they are met? The
Member for Wiltshire said, first, that the Ballot will not at-
tain its object--will not insure secrecy; and yet before he
sat down he contended that it would so effect its object--
would be so fearfully close in its concealment that it would
make a man's whole life one lie. But there arguments de-
stroy each other. But let us look at them separately. The
argume,nt of the Noble Lord that opinions would not be secret
is a fallacy. The Ballot will not prevent a man's opinions
being known—but what then ? You do not punish a
man for his opinions, you punish him for his vote. No
tyrant nowadays establishes an inquisition over another
man's sentiments, he only wants to control his actions.
He cannot say, " Sir, I don't know how you vote,
but I am told you think differently from myself, and therefore
as a man who thinks differently from me has no right to sell
heterodox hats or stockings, I shall take away my custom, or
drive you out of the town." If a man were to say or imply
this, his own party would not support him, and the public opi-
nion you invoke would indeed rise against him.—( Hear, hear.)
The Ballot is precisely this, that the elector's life will not be
a lie—that his sentiments will be known, and being known,
no tyrant can seek to intimidate or injure him, because the more
he attempts to control the open sentiments, the more he will
insure the hostility of the secret vote; and the Noble Lord
the Member for Liverpool said the Ballot was a cowardly
system—a fraudulent system—a system favourable to false-
hood. What, is there nothing cowardly in open voting ?
( Hear, hear.) Is there so much valour in a system that als
lows a man to be frightened out of his opinions, in the exer.
cise of a solemn duty ? Is it not a wholesale fraud of the
grossest description, when the State gives you a right, and then
allows your neighbour to snatch it out of your hand ? Is it not
a falsehood of the darkest dye, when your actions belie your
opinions, and you proclaim to your fellow-citizens that your
heart is one way and your vote another? This it is that makes
a man's life a lie—(Cheers)—this it is makes an election a
melancholy sabrifice of public principle and individual con-
science. You say that the canvass will be the cause; that
the landlord will extort a proraise, and if the tenant should
break that promise he will be a liar. Ido not think that the
canvass of intimidation will go on, it will be a canvass of an-
other sort. But suppose it does, and suppose the elector does
promise and then breaks the promise, I do not commend, I
do 'not excuse his falsehood ; but I say it is infinitely less
mischievous to lie to an individual than to lie to his coun-
try—infinitely less mischievous to vote as his conscience
tells him, even at the expense of truth, than to vote equally
against the truth by voting against his conscience, and
against what he believes to be the public interest. In either
case it is a falsehood. But in the one case it is a falsehood
that affects an individual, in the other case it is a sin against
the whole political community. You tell us that the Ballot
does not work well elsewhere. You tell us that history and
experience teach us that it has failed. I find it exactly the re-
verse. The Noble Lord the Member for Liverpool has chal
longed me to refer to ancient States. I do not regard the
ancient democracies as models—they were full of fatal errors
—they were not democracies properly speaking, for their
working classes were slaves, and most of their evils arose from
their mistaking liberty to be the license of a handful of citi-
zens, and the oppression of the servile population. But at
least for the liberty they did possess the Ballot was considered
so essential, that without it the:wisest of all the ancient poli-
tical writers, and one to this day an authority with all rea-
soners, I mean Aristotle, declared that liberty of election could
not even exist. —( Cheers.) What was the first net of the 30
tyrants in Athens ? To overthrow the Ballot and institute the
open vote. In Rome it was not effective against bribery—l
grant it ; but why ? From the enormous fortunes and gigantic
ambition of the patricians, !against which all barriers were in
vain. They came to their elections laden with the spoils of
exhausted nations, and they devoted the plunder of other
countries to the corruption of their own. Their wealth was
great, their incentives to ambition dazzling beyond all modern
analogy. But at least the Ballot even in Rome was effective,
if not against bribery, against intimidation. For that very
reason both Cicero and Gibbon have condemned it, and many
Gentlemen will remember that sublime expression of Cicero's,
in which he calls it the silent asserter of liberty. Come to
modern times. You have America before you. The Noble
Lord says it does not work well in that country. Listen to
this testimony in the able and dispassionate work of Mr.
Stuart. But before I read the passage, I beg Honourable
Gentlemen to recollect that in America the Ballot and the
open voting have each had a fair trial. Some States have the
one, some States the other, and what has been the result ?
Why, that no State has given up the ballot, and that State after
State has given up the open voting. Mr. Stuart says, " The
Ballot is becoming more and more universal ; the States of
Connecticut, Kentucky, and Louisiana having lately adopted
it instead of the vote viva voce." Now, then, see why the
Ballot was preferred—see the different workings of the two
modes of election. Mr. Stuart was present at an election by Bal-
lot at Ballston Spa. He says, " The excitement occasioned by
the election generally was declared by the newspapers to be
far greater than ever had been witnessed before since the de-
claration of independence in 1776 ; yet I am bound to bear this
test mony in its favour, that so quiet a day of election, both
within and without doors, I never witnessed in England or
Scotland." "In a State far exceeding Scotland in extent,
and almost equalling it in population, the votes for the chief
magistrate of the United States and his substitute, for the
Governor and Lieutenant-Governor of the State, for a senator
and representatives to Congress, for three representatives to
New York, &c., were taken, and the business of the election
finished with ease and the most perfect order and decorum in
three days ; all voted by Ballot, which is here considered the
only way to obtain independent and unbiassed votes." This
is where the Ballot is adopted. Now observe the difference in
those States where Ballot is not adopted. At Louisville, in
Kentucky, Mr. Flint saw the votes taken without Ballot—the
poll was kept open three days. " I saw three fights in the
course of an hour. This method appears to be productive of
as much discord here as in England." So much for Ballot in
America. Now then it is not only that bribery will in a great
measure and in all large constituencies be utterly prevented—
it is not only that intimidation Rill be rendered woric than
useless, but it is because you will also gain in order, quiet, and
in good moral results generally, that I advocate the
Ballot. When men come to understand that an election is
not a mere holiday excitement, but a great and important na-
tional ceremony, they will look more into the real nature of
the duties confided to them, and public morality will be no less
promoted than private conscience will be protected. But it is
said that it will weaken the influence of property. Now there
are two kinds of influence—legitimate influence and unlawful
and improper influence. The improper and unlawful influence
the Ballot will undoubtedly destroy : wherever one man
trembles at the frown of another—wherever money is, used
to corrupt poverty—wherever property is intended to overrule
the conscience—there, indeed, will the Ballot step in, and
there will the poor man and the rich man be on equal terms.
But wherever a great proprietor is more beloved than feared
—wherever his virtues are made more apparent by the pe-
destal on which they stand—there the Ballot-box will net
steal from him a single vote, or take an atom from the legiti-
mate
influence of his station.—( Hear, hear.) On the contrary,
it as ill always be found that the more the Constitution forces the
Aristocracy to cultivate the favour of the people, the greater
will be the moral influence of the Aristocracy, and the
more you will find them rising to the head of affairs.
Look at England and Germany at this day. In Germany,
where the Constitution keeps the Nobility apart from the
people, the Nobility have not the energy, the ambition, the
excitement to produce great men, and the most eminent names
spring from the
people ; but in England, where the Constitu-
tion has always, more or less, forced the gentlemen te culti-
vate the public opinion of the masses, you find the gentlemen
producting ornaments in literature, in the State, in the army,
giving to the nation some of its greatest heirlooms of renown,
and exhibiting that intellectual eminence and exercising that
moral influence which must always result from uniting the at is-
tocratic advantages of leisure and property with the popular
elements of activity and ambition. This species of influence
the Ballot can only tend to increase ; and as men of property
are forced to he popular, property itself becomes powerful.—
( Cheers.) In a recent debate on Canada, certain expres
sions of mine have been severely misinterpreted—certain
terms of censure I ventured to express towards not more
than five or six gentlemen, whose speeches elsewhere
seemed to me to prejudice the liberal cause, have been per-
verted into a belief of my disaffection to the very cause I

ttiE SUN, LONbON, ctilktf.A.RV id, 1838.

Wish6cl tti attyt see- accused of supporting the
boveintiniSni froth a desire of office. Sir, I owe it to my
hatetracfohrment Londonto thdaitrelci tteerdatuar en
oatt
vwehryiehcotnilsCidiler9antoeursaabrcleasMietrehe
other night, if I can say, with men of far higher station and
wealth, that I am independent of all official temptation. I
confess that it is my weakness to prefer the emoluments and
the distinctions that are open to me in another career to all
the more dazzling honours that a Minister could bestow.—
( Hear, hear.) I shall not, then, be accused of speaking for
myself when I ask her Majesty's Government to consider
well the numbers, the energy, the talent in their own party,
by which this question is supported.—(Cheers.) Can they
turn round to the vast majority of their friends and say,
we accept your support, but we proscribe your opinions—
( Hear, hear)—you shall never hope a participation in
power unless you lease your sentiments behind you. I
see among her Majesty's Cabinet gentlemen known to be
fsvourable to the Ballot—arc they to set an example to the
people that it may be quite right to think one way and to
vote another ? Must it not tell fatally against yourselves ?
You ask for the popular support, because you fight for the
popular party and against an aristocratic majority. But in
every town the liberal party has'also its own aristocracy, far
more bigoted and intolerant to contend against. What are
your obstacles on a great scale, arc their obstacles in every
town, every province throughout the country. But just ob-
serve the difference : you can only lose office and its emolu-
ments, the poor elector may lose the very means of existence,
and sacrifice the bread of his children to forward your cause,
and fight a battle which has no office, no glory, no successful
ambition to confer upon him.—( Cheers.) Is it just---is it
prudent to call on him for those perpetual sacrifices ? Can
they be always made? Is not human nature too weak for
such violent efforts and such fearful temptations ? I do 'not
threaten you with the sordid loss of power, but I do threaten
you with what all public men must desire to prevent—serious
detriment to your own principles, deep discouragement to
public exertion, till at last your indifference to the 'safety of
' the elector will end in the corruption of the Parliament. You
have given emancipation to the Catholic, give emancipation to
the elector; you have asserted liberty of conscience in
religi-
ous opinions, protect liberty of conscience in civil rights.
Tell us, and tell the people of England, that you will defend
them in the exercise of that power you have given them, and
that when you say you will abide by the Reform Bill, you did
not mean that that second Charter of our liberties was to
be put up to the highest bidder, or wrenched away from
public opinion, by the strong gripe of individual tyranny.—
(Loud cheers.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said—l think that my Hon.
Friend the Member for Lincoln, in addressing the appeal which
he has made in such courtly terms to her Majesty's Govern-
ment on this occasion, has somewhat followed the course which
has been pursued by others, namely, that of assuming that the
measure now proposed for the consideration of the House is a
fair and proper remedy for the evils which it is intended to
cure,--( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for London ad-
mitted that there were two propositions which it was incum
bent on him to prove ; the one was, that considerable intimida-
tion and corruption existed at elections; and the other was,
that the Ballot and secret voting was a remedy for such evils.
With respect to the former part of his propositions, I em not
disposed much to dispute what he said, though I think that
even there he resorted to very great exaggeration.—( Opposi-
tion cheers.) I should have collected from the Hon. Gen-
tleman's speech that the whole mass of the people of England
—(Hear)—that by far the great majority—that all but a very
inconsiderable number were brought up to the polling-booths
to vote against their consciences. Now, I must say, that in
my opinion, if that were really the case, living as the voters
do in the midst of the nation—if those individuals who were
entrusted with the elective franchise, and who constitute a
large proportion of those who hold property in the country—
if they were in this degraded state, ready in masses to be
brought up, against their will, to vote for whomsoever it
might please their landlords or their masters that they should
vote—if that were their state of degradation, I should say
that the spirit of liberty was extinct in the nations and no me-
chanical device could possibly restore that free soul which was
then altogether gone, and must be considered as for ever de-
parted.—(Opposition cheering.) But while I admit that
there has been considerable intimidation and great bribery—
(" Hear, hear," from the Ministerial benches)—at the last
election, I must say I do consider that the intimidation
especially affected only a portion of the voters; and that was,
in my opinion, only a small proportion of the whole number.
—( Loud cries of " Oh !" from the Ministerial benches, and
cheers from the Opposition.) Still, however, I am not
disposed to dispute that the existence of intimidation is
an evil of considerable magnitude.—( Hear, hear, hear.)
But I am asked to-night, not to admit the exist-
ence of an evil, not to consider what can possibly be the re-
medy of it, but to assume that the proper remedy is this
secret voting, and to consent to its adoption.—( Opposition
cheers.) I am obliged, I confess, to use on this occasion
arguments that I have used on former occasions, both hero
and elsewhere, and that others have used before me to-night,
against this proposition. When a remedy is proposed for the
evil, I do feel a repugnance to it on being told—on its being
admitted by almost all the proposers of it—that its first effect,
and its permanent operation, must be the introduction and en-
couragement of deceit, hypocrisy, and falsehood among the
voters.—( Opposition cheers.) One Hon. Gentleman says
that conduct of this description is justifiable in such cases—
that where the landlord or the master is an oppressor, the
tenant has a right to deceive him; and the Hon. Gentle-
man quoted certain passages from Bailey and Johnson in
support of his view. I will not enter into that dispute,
but I do wish to record my repugnance to the fact which
seems to be admitted, that deceit and falsehood must be the
result of the very first step it is proposed that the House
should adopt to remedy the evil complained of—( Opposition
cheers)—and this proposition, be it remembered, is part of a
new proposal to reform the representation of the people.__
( Cries of " Oh" and cheers.) My Hon. Friend who spoke
last, endeavoured to get rid of this objection by saying, " Yea,
but there is at present falsehood ; the man tells a lie to his
country now ; if the Ballot be adopted, lie will tell a lie only to
a private individual." Why, I must say that even if that
were the case, it would merely prove that you would exchange
one evil for another—( Cries of " Oh 1") But whether,
under such circumstrnces, the evil be more or less, I do
not think it is of the same nature, and that which my
Hon. Friend has said in this respect is rather a meta-
phor than an argument on the subject. What I mean is
this :—when a voter conceals his opinion, his doing so is
very degrading, and no doubt very injurious to the country.
--(Hear, hear.) He says, " 1 am sorry that I cannot vote
according to my will ; I am sorry that the authority of
others and my own interest compel me to vote against the
candidate whom I think best fitted to be my representative in
Parliament." He who so conducts himself does certanly
commit a political offence, but he commits it, not disguising
that he is doing an act against his will.—( Hear, hear.,
What, however, is now proposed to us is, that when a man is
called on by the agent of his landlord, he should promise his
vote to a certain candidate; that he should repeat that pro-
mise in his association with his neighbours at the public din-
ner, or in the processions that take place in the course of
elections ; that he should bear in his demeanour an appear-
ance of being a friend and supporter of that candidate ; and
when he comes to give his secret vote, that he should belie his
promise, and falsify the whole of his previous conduct__
( Much cheering front the Opposition, and cries of " Oh, oh,"
from the Ministerial side.)—l do say that the political
degradation which results in the one case is a totally
different thiug from the moral degradation which would
follow from the adoption of this proposition. Well ; but
then we are to suppose that, by the introduction of this
great evil, of this moral plague to the country, we arc to ob-
tain a great political good—we arc to insure freedom in our
elections hereafter. I must here repeat the objections in prin-
ciple which I have at various times urged against the proposi-
tion of secret voting, and which have been much argued against
to-night—that the voter is a trustee, and ought to be respon-
sible to the public for the manner in which he executes his
trust. When I consider that our public functionaries, whether
Judges er Ministers, or Members of Parliament, all act in
the face of day—( Opposition cheers)—and I believe we arc
all made better in the exercise of our duties, by the publicity
of our proceedings—( Hear, hear)—l do say that I see no rea-
son for excepting from that responsibility to popular opinion,
the great body of those in whom the elective franchise is
vested—l see no reason why they alone should be removed from
the eyes of the public ; why they alone should be allowed to
exercise the trust reposed in them protected from publicity ;
why they should be permitted to discharge their public duty,
the public having no knowledge—( The conclusion of the No-
ble Lord's sentence was lost in the murmurs which came from
the Ministerial side of the House, and the cheers which re-
sponded to them from the Opposition). The Honourable
Member for London tells me he has another doctrine—
that lie holds the elective franchise to be no trust, but
that when it is once conferred on him by law it is the abso-
lute right of the voter—his absolute property, and if he
comply only with the conditions of the law, he may exercise it
as he pleases. I am glad he did no propound that doctrine at
the time we were discussing the Reform Bill ; the great
principle of which is, that the elective franchise is a power
held in trust only for the benefit of the people.—( Hear, hear.)
There is nother answer that has been given, which I have
not heard to-night, but which I have seen in print, and which
I think is the most plausible answer that can he given to
this objection of the responsibility of the voter. It is said, if
you insist that the elector shall act under responsibility, and
that his conduct shall be exposed to the eye of those who
have not the right of election themselves, you admit that
those who have not the right of election are fitting judges
of the manner in which the trust ought to he exercised ;
and if they are fit so to judge, they arc fit to exercise
the right of election themselves. Now, plausible as this
sounds, I do think it a conclusive argument against my
objection, because, in all the other cases where you
admit the public, many of them being of the same
class, you by no means imply that the persons who
see and criticise are persons who are capable of exi r-
cising the power. Let my conduct in a court of justice be
secret—let me be free from the criticism of the public.—
( Cries of " Oh !" " Question I" and " Order.") The argu-
ment is, that if persons are fit to judge of those who exercise
the franchise, they are fit to exercise it themselves; and I say
it might as well be asserted that no persons are fit to sit in a
court of justice or criticise the charges and conduct of the
judge except those who are fit to sit on the bench.—(Re-
newcd cries of " Oh 1") It does appear to mo that so far as
the answer to my objection is concerned, it might as well be
made against any other kind of publicity as against the pub-
licity that belongs to the elective franchise.—( Hear.) I will
now refer to the argument as to the efficacy of this plan, be-
cause undoubtedly, unless it is to be efficacious, the incurring
the risk of much falsehood, of great hypocrisy, and of act-
ing against the general principle of public responsibility.
Iwhich has been established throughout the country in all
other matters of state, ought to decide against it. That

I it ..,vould be efficacious i much dObi I
. With respect to the 1
tenantry acting under the landlord, belils:vi, witp mye
Honourable Friend the Member for Derbyshire, that if
e ou suppose—and you mug do so, or the measure is
.
worthless—that this is to be a security tatty:. ..7'ainst
the bad and tyrannical landlord, I say that that had and ty-
rannical landlord would soon have the means of exercising a
control, even though he had not the power of knowing which
way the vote was given.—( Hear, hear.) I have said that if
this plan were successful, it would lead to breaches of promise
—it would lead to falsehood. My belief is that no people in
the world are so remarkable for their love of truth as are the
people of this country; and that so strongly in that principle
implanted in them, that if a landlord's tenants promised him
faithfully that they would not vote for a certain candidate,
ihnugh the Ballot gave them the power of secrecy, they would
keep their promise.—( Cheers.) But if they made no promise
—if they said, resolutely, " We will not promise—we will
give no promise to your candidate or to your friend ;" why,
then, would it not be the presumption of the landlord that they
were men who meant to rote against him, that their polities
were opposed to his; and if he were an individual to exercise
a tyrannical influence, would he not exercise it under such cir-
cumstances?—(Hear, hear-) Would this be a remedy, be it
always remembered, is the great question. Where people's
sentiments are known, as they are in the country by the con-
versation which takes place so much in public houses and
in market-places with respect to politics—where the general
character and political sentiments of every man are so gene-
rally known, can it be supposed that the stewards of the
landlords, who we must conclude to be acquainted with their
master's wishes, would not take care, before a few years
were over, that the tenants were all of them of the same po-
litical sentiments as their own? Where, then, would be the
remedy ? I contend that this measure, instead of being a
benefit to the voter, would only be an injury to all the tenants
in the country, and to the prosperity of the whole people.
With respect to tradesmen living in towns, I do believe there
is some difference in the case.—( Cheers from the Ministe-
rial benches.) I own I am disposed to think there would be
cases in which the customer has little connection with the
tradesman—in which he knows scarcely any thing of the
tradesman ; under the present system, hearing of the man-
ner in which he has voted, he deprives him of his custom.
I think there might be cases in which the customer would
not, under the Ballot, ask him questions, and would not
try by severe means to find out the manner in which he
had voted. Thus I do think that there might be some in-
stances in which you would find this plan effect a certain
degree of good, but I also think that the good would be
miserably overweighed by the quantity of evil. I must again
refer to what I stated on a former occasion, that I am
decidedly of opinion that the question of Ballot, as it now
comes before us, does not stand alone. I will not go
any further into the question of the Ballot as an abstract
proposition, feeling as I do how often it has been dis-
cussed, and feeling likewise that on another occasion I have
C elivcred my opinions very fully upon it; but I wish to
address myself to those who think that by means of the
Ballot they could establish a state of things in which, accord-
ing to the words of the Honourable Member for London,
every vestige of intimidation would disappear ;" in short,
that you have but to adopt secret voting and you place your
representation on a sound footing, and your reform will be
complete. I said on a former occasion that I thought vote
by Ballot would lead to other things.—( Hear, hear.) It has
struck me, besides, and I have since seen it stated, that if
you declare that the voter shall not be responsible to public
opinion, and carry your object really into effect, all those
who are shut out from the exercise of the elective Franchise,
and who now know how every person has given his vote,
will be far more discontented under the new state of
things than they arc at present.—( Hear, hear, hear.) You
now sav, " It is true, indeed, we do not think you
qualified by the conditions of property, which we have
thought it necessary to lay down, to extend the elective
franchise to you, but you are among the free inhabi-
tants of this country, you see the whole operation of the
Government, from the commencement of the election of
Members of Parliament to the Parliamentary debates—you
are participators in all, and your opinion goes to swell that
grand tide of public opinion on which the affairs of State are
borne along ;" should you, however, have to say, " We
think there is one privilege, and a most important one, from
which you shall entirely be excluded, as regards the election
of Members of Parliament, you shall never heir which way
any voter gives his vote, you shall never know the reason for
which one man is elected in preference to another." I&do
think that under such a state of things there is every proba-
bility that dissatisfaction must arise. The observations
I made to this effect have been confirmed by my ex-
perience of the last few months. I would ask any Gentle-
man who has watched the course of events—who has
observed the meetings which have taken place in favour of
the Ballot—whether they have not found that this jealousy
really does exist—that there is now a large portion of the
people who fear that the Ballot may be established for the
protection of the present electors—that reform will stop then—
and that those who are non-electors will be more excluded
from the opportunity of observing the course of public af-
fairs than they are at the present moment ?—( Hear, hear.)
In confirmation of my statement I will take the liberty of
referring to some extracts I have made, which will show
what opinions have been expressed by persona of eminence
who have taken a part at the public meetings in favour of
the Ballot ; because, after all, if the Ballot were to be carried,
it would be by those men who are now standing forward as its
chief advocates, and it is by them that we must expect the
course of affairs in future with respect to the representation
to be in a great decree conducted. At a meeting held in
Westminster soon after the commencement of the Ses-
sion, there was a letter read from Lord Brougham.
The Noble and Learned Lord declares : " But more fre-
quent appeals to the country may be of little avail,
while a mighty body of our fellow-citizens ate excluded
from all share in the management of their own affairs, and
left without the power of enforcing opinions which they
have at the least as much capacity to form, and at the very
least as much independence of spirit to assert, as those who at
present possess the elective franchise. This exclusion I
certainly regard as the worst of grievances now complained
of." He says further—" Upon the yet more enormous injus-
tice, the incomparably more perilous mischief of excluding so
many thousands from those political rights which they are so
unquestionably entitled to enjoy, and so well fitted to exer
else I have again and again declared my fixed opinion both in
,
Parliament an to the country." Lord Brougham declares
himself a reluctant convert to the Ballot ; he is an ardent ad-
vocate for the extension of the Suffrage. The Hon. Member
for Southwark, who has spoken on this subject on many occa-
sions at public meetings, has always stated that he considered
the Ballot if given alone would be of little value ; he would have
with it an extensive franchise. I believe he said on the last occa-
sion on which he addressed his constituents on the question—if
I am not representing him correctly he will correct me—that
every person resident in the place of voting should be allowed
to register his vote. At all events he expressed a desire to
carry out a great extension of the suffrage. My Hon. Friend
the Member fur Bridport said this—" His maxim lend always
been to take what he could get, in order that he might ob-
tain power to get more."—( Cheers and laughter. )4Lord John
Russell had stated that the Ballot, Universal Suffrage, and
Triennial Parliaments were so closely connected together,
that if one of them were granted it would be the means of
obtaining the other two, and, therefore, he refused all of
them. Whenever the question of the shortening the dura-
tion of Parliament, Universal Suffrage, or the Vote by Ballot
came before the House, he (Mr. Warburton) would always
support the one, that he might obtain the other ; but if he
were asked which he would choose first, he should say the
Ballot.—(Cheers and cries of " No, no.") He would do so,
because he thought, when he had gained that, the in-
evitable consequence would be to get all the others."
But when my
Honourable Friend told the meeting that
he was ready as soon as he had got the Ballot to obtain
all the others, the meeting cried out " All at once,"
being persuaded—and not improperly—that if this great
change took place it might be as well that in one Bill all
those other changes which they desired should be effected.
Many other meetings took place in London and in the coun-
try, to which I need not refer, except to say I think
that in most of them, besides a resolution in favour of the
Ballot, there was generally a resolution carried in favour of
shortening the duration of Parliaments, and another for the
extension of the suffrage to household suffrage, or at least
for such an extension of the suffrage as involved a very
considerable change. At a large meeting which took
place at Sheffield there was a division, and that division ne-
gatived Universal Suffrage and Triennial Parliaments, and
adopted Vote by Ballot. One would presume, from the
course pursued on that occasion, that Vote by Ballot was
to be adopted alone, and that with that change the
changes in our representation were to cease • but if you
consult the speeches of those who advised the' meeting
to take that course—the speeches of those who influenced
the meeting to come to that decision, a different result will
appear. A gentleman who spoke frequently at the public
meetings in that neighbourhood, and who has considerable in-
fluence there ( Mr. Palfreyman, said, " To us, and to all the
requisitionists, the Ballot is only important inasmuch as it is
connected with the great cause of the people, the cause of Re-
form, the ultimate extension of the Suffrage, and the shor-
tening of the duration of Parliaments.—( Cheers.) The only
question 'about which we differ is at which end to begin. I
think the proposers of the amendment are attempting to put
in the thick end of the wedge first.—(Cheers, and no, no.) I
say yes, yes ; but I think that when we have got the Ballot_
when we have got the matter once between the rollers—we
shall necessarily draw all connected with it through. With
the supporters of the amendment I agree, that the Ballot might
be injurious unless the other two questions should be carried
after it." I think the lion. Member for London said that his
proposition did not trench on any other question, and the Ho-
nourable Gentleman who seconded the mutioa also kept quit,.
clear of those other questions—the extension of the Suffrage
and the shortening the duration of Parliaments. But h-
did not so at Sheffield.—( Hear, and a laugh.) In an able
speech he made there, he denied that this was a question un-
connected with any other. He said, " To me the question is
indifferent. I am prepared to support them all.—( Hear.
hear, from the supporters of the amendmcnt.) I beg that I
may not be misunderstood.—( It was here intimated that the
amendment was for Universal Suffrage.) I am for a large
extension of the Suffrage, bnt I am not prepared for the ab-
stract proposition of Universal Suffrage. But the question is,
whether it will advance the object we all have in view to corn.
bine these questions, or whether it will be better to select the
one upon which the greatest amount of opinion can be brought
to bear." Now, undoubtedly, it is a fair mode of proceeding
to bring forward the Ballot, as that question on which the
greatest amount of public opinion can be brought to bear, and
on which the greatest division can be obtained in this
I
House ; but while I am asked to change my former votes,
and vote for it, I see, on the one hand, that greater inti-
midation is practised—not that evil has increased.—( Hear,

hear.) On the other hand, I find those who are proposing
the Ballot now say, what I don't remember them to have
lid fOrmer occasions: They say at the public meetings
on the Tialltii) that ()nee carried, they will endeavour to get
the duration of Paei!httUnt shortened; and then an extension
OT ^ euffrege—and the extene!lft Qf tbthesuffragei mind, is a
most indefinite Opposition cheerg.,l gentleman
who has done me the honour address letter to (Houielso:
Symonds), in which he has discusses t3o the sub-
hold Suffrage, says what is not quite inapplicatne sseiversal
ject. Some mean by the extension of the suffrage, ts...
Suffrage ; and if the Ballot is granted, this indefinite change
is to be brought in as a necessary sequel. Is not that with me
a sufficient reason to pause? Ought I not to consider whe-
ther I shall not be called on to adopt the other changes de-
manded. The Hon. Member for London did not allude to the
other countries in which Ballot has been adopted. He alluded
to the report of the Intimidation Committee, and to the evi-
dence as to intimidation; but he passed over the evidence
on the 'subject of secret voting. My Hon. Friend behind
me has t:eferred to the operation of the Ballot in Greece and
Rome, and in modern stater. I agree in what he says respecting
Rome; the people were so degraded by corruption that it was
impossible the Ballot or any other measure could reform the
state. But what has been the operation of the Ballot in
America? Without perfect secresy, said the Hon. Member
for London, the measure must be quite inoperative. Now,
has perfect secresy been obtained in America? Three wit-
nesses examined by the Committee spoke to this point. One
said, " I think the Ballot is used by us as a matter of conve-
nience—few or no persons caring to conceal their votes."
Another said, " I should think in New York that the senti-
ments of upwards of ninety voters—l was going to say ninety
out of every 100, are perfectly well known before they go up
to poll." Such is the state of property in America, that I
believe it is not worth the while of any man to endeavour to
influence the voter; but it is not so here. Where there are
large masses of property, a different feeling must be expected
to exist. Then in France the use of the Ballot is to prevent
influence being exerted by the Government. Does it do se?
There was lately a discussion in the Chamber of Deputies,
in the course of which the Minister was charged by the
leader of the Opposition with having used the influence of
the Government to a great extent in the elections.—
( Hear, hear.) One would have supposed his answer would
have been, " We have secret voting, it is impossible to know
any man's vote ;" but so far from that having been his reply,
he admitted the fact, and asserted that the exercise of influence
was necessary to the existence of any Government. I can see
then nothing, either in the question itself, in the present state
of the country, in the anticipations with which we are fur-
nished with respect to other measures, or in the experience
afforded by other countries, to induce me to adopt this propo-
sition.---(Opposition cheers.) lam sure, it may be said, that
if we acknowledge the evil to a great extent, we are bound to
find a remedy. Ido not think it might be impossible to pro-
pose a remedy that might have some considerable effect, but I
believe that so long as Hon. Gentlemen feel themselves bound
to carry the Ballot out, a remedy would be despised by them,
and it would be useless to propose it unless they were willing
to admit it to fair trial.—( Cheers.) But allow me to say, be-
fore 1 conclude, that I do feel that a very great evil exists in
the intimidation and corruption which have been practised at
election after election, and more particularly in the two last
general elections.—( Cheers.) Ido not charge any party
with this conduct, but I do say that all those who have
the power to intimidate, on those who are the landlords and
great proprietors in this country, that this sort of intimidation
will be visited, unless some change shall take place.—( Hear,
and cheers.) I cannot, Sir, vote for the Ballot. I cannot
vote for it, because 1 think it would be a very serious evil in-
stead of being an efficacious remedy. I cannot vote for the
Ballot because I do believe that with the Ballot Parliament
would be driven into other changes in the representative system,
and because I believe that the prosperity of the whole of this
country, in which the lowest man not less than die highest
is concerned, must be upon the permanency, the stability, and
the tranquillity of our institutions ; but when I say this, I
cannot but perceive, though I may not take part in the mea-
sures, and though I refuse all concurrence in them, yet if the
people of England year after year, feel more and more inti-
midation and undue influence used, that they will feel
also that there are left to them not the rights which
are given to them, not less by the ancient constitu-
tion of this country than by the new franchise conferred
by the Reform Bill.—( Hear, hear, hear.) I think that the
feeling now existing on the subject of the Ballot will, under
such circumstances, be strengthened. I believe, in the first
place, that the people of England, who have seen great
changes accomplished, are most unwilling and are most re-
luctant that new changes of great importance should be
effected.—( Hear, hear,) I believe particularly that a change
of voting secretly instead of openly would be a change most
abhorrent to their feelings and their desire to act with open-
ness, fairness, and manliness.—( Hear, hear.) Yet Ido
believe, with all this, that unless those who have great
powers of property in this country will endeavour in future
to abstain from intimidation—and I do think they would not
lose their influence by it, I believe they would scarcely lose a
single supporter—but unless they will endeavour to sustain
their power by means of conciliation and allowing five
in one hundred or five in a thousand of their te-
nants, tradesmen, and customers to take their own way,
unless they do this I think that this question will gain
strength, and if it does gain strength I cannot but perceive
that very great evils are impending over the country. —( Cheers. )
Mr. E. R. RICE rose amid loud cries of " Question !"
from the Opposition benches. He wished to say that he
supposed this motion independent of any other question, and
lie thought it was quite distinct from any other. He thought
it so distinct that if he were called upon to support the Ballot,
as the Hon. Member for Finsbury had called upon the House
to do, in connection with the extension of the franchise, then
he most certainly would vote for the Ballot, and against the
extension of the suffrage, especially as the latter would, in
his opinion, be virtually repealing ;the Reform Bill.--( Con-
tinued cries of " Question" from the Members on the oppo-
sition benches. )
Mr. C. BULLER rose to order. He could perceive
what was the determination of the Hon. Gentlemen opposite.
—( Loud cries of " Oh, oh," and " Divide," from Members
on the Opposition benches.) He saw that there was a sys-
tematic determination not to hear Members in support of the
Ballot.—(Continued cries of " Oh, oh," and " Divide.")
There was then but ono remedy, and that was to move an
adjournment.
Mr. E. R. RICE again rose amid loud cries of " Ques-
tion I" " Spoke, spoke 1" and " Divide !" from Members of
the Opposition Benches. Amid the noise and confusion the
Hon. Member spoke a few words, which could not be heard in
the gallery.
Mr. HALL next rose to speak, but the shouts and cries of
the Members on the Opposition Benches were continued, so as
to render the Hon. Member quite inaudible.
The SPEAK ER begged to tell Hon. Members that it
was neither creditable to themselves nor to the House that
they should incur the imputation of a desire to interrupt fair
discussion in that House.—(Cheers.)
Mr. HALL was not at all surprised at the impatience felt
by the House, neither was lie astonished at the unwillingness
with which some Hon. Members listened to the arguments
which were adduced in support of the present motion. Tho
question itself had been so often discussed, that the arguments,
both for and against it, must be to a great extent exhausted;
and as he had on former occasions been permitted to state his
own opinions, which remained not merely unchanged, but
considerably strengthened, he came down to the House with
the full intention of giving a silent vote upon the present occa-
sion, and not obtruding himself again upon their attention.
But having listened attentively to the speech of the Noble
Lord below him, he could not, in justice to himself as an inde-
pendent Member of the House, adhere to his original inten-
tion.—( Hear, hear.) He rose, then, not for the purpose of
entering upon the discussion whether the Ballot was or was
not a desirable remedy for the evils which existed ; but to ex-
press his deep regret at the speech which had been delivered
by the Noble Lord. —(Cheers.) When he looked back at
the debates which had taken place in that House, and rensern-
bored the loud advocacy in behalf of this very measure which
was taken by some Right Hon. Gentlemen who now sat upon
the Treasury Bench, and compared with that expression of
their former opinions the conduct which they were now about
to pursue, he naturally experienced those sentiments of dis-
satisfaction which such extraordinary conduct tended to
produce.—( Hear. ) The Noble Lord had admitted that in.
timidation and coercion had existed to a great extent at the
late elections; he had stated that it had been carried to a
wider limit at the two last elections than at any previous
ones. Did the Noble Lord remember the speech made by
his Noble Colleague, the Member for Northumberland, when
this subject was before the House last year ? Did lie recol-
lect the concluding sentence of that Noble Lord's speech ?
He (Mr. Hall) had already stated that he had not come down
to the House with any intention of addr,ssing it; he was
not, therefore, prepared with written extracts from that
speech, but he remembered full well the ability with which his
Noble Friend spoke; and in allusion to the intimidation which
had been practised, he said that although he was not prepared
to support the Ballot at that time, yet, if the intimidation, was
continued—if it was persevered in—" We must, and we should
have the Ballot." Those were the words of his Noble Friend.
They were considered at the time as a guarantee for a favoura-
ble consideration of this subject, and he now called upon the
Government to desist from their present course, and to realize
the hope which they had held out, that if the Ballot was not
to be supported by the Government as a body, they would at
least allow those connected with them, who were favourable
to the proposition of his Hon. Friend the Member for London
to record their opinions in favour of that measure.---( Cheers. )
But, even if the Administration was not prepared to go that
length, and yet admitted that great malpractices existed at
elections—that the voter teas coerced, and instead of his
franchise being his own, that it was made the property of others
—why did they not come forward with some good and efficient
remedy ?—( Hear, hear.) Ile ( Mr. Hall) was not so wedded
to his support of the Ballot, that he would not abandon it if
a better remedy could be found, and he was sure his Hun.
Friend, the Member for London, would be equally ready to
give up this motion, if such a substitute could be proposed ;
but he believed it would be extremely difficult to produce
such an invention, and the real objection to the Ballot was, that
it would be thoroughly efficacious.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble
Lord had, strange to say, quoted Lord Brougham as an au-
thority upon this subject. Lord Brougham had once stated that
he feared the Ballet would lead to bribery and falsehood; but
had not Lord Brougham changed his opinions? Was he not now
a supporter of the Ballot? But were not elections in some
boroughs now a scene of bribery and falsehood? Could any
thing be worse than the system which now existed? But
he would keep his promise, and not argue the subject ;
he was ready to answer the objections taken by the Noble
Lord, but he would not do so. He would ask, was it
fair towards the Reformers, was it fair towards the country,
that the present Government, who professed opinions of a
liberal character, who in former years wete the advocates of

51 I I rr

etseeset .s tie.,_,,, /es-so
a liberal policy, of Reform in our institutions, tfyttOmilteatesees.>
{
liberty of their countrymen, should now sten ertoa :I'clOiftelhists,;:.:!k 61
opponents of a free exercise of the franchise ejetag,§4r-fifsl;l,l7P.
supporting their friends throw themselves into ''.tiqtriiratillsy. -o,',VA
Tories.—( Loud cheers.) He lamented this co ti 'I .I;lti4tonee'sit' e.i..
DOW of frequent adoption, but although in t p %*- are'---- -,-ss,
they might be successful, it would ultimately be *of=4olis "iitfis• ' -
The Ballot was the question of all others most %ire ills4ey
the public; it was the ground upon which they rested their
hopes for the free exercise of their franchise. Each succeed-
ing election rendered it snore necessary, and despite of the
present unnatural coalition between the Government and the
.1711-ies, lie believed that such a tiomber would go forth in sup-
port::tie motion this evening as would convey an assur-
ancers that we soon must and si
of
to Minist, .:. iall have the Ballot.
—( Cheers.)
Lord WORSLEYintet:fled to vote in favour of the Ballot,
although he admitted that secs et voting would nset put an
end to bribery.
Captain PECHELL rose to address the House, Liquid
long-continued cries of " Divide" from Members on Ole
Opposition benches. He said that it had been his intention
to have expressed his opinions fully upon this subject ; but
perceiving the tone and temper of Honourable Gentlemen op-
posite lie knew well how vain would be the attempt to address
an unwilling House.—(Cries of " Divide, divide.") It was
his duty to stand up there in in his place, and support a pe-
tiiion from the town that he represented, particularly when the
object of those who petitioned was to obtain protection for the
voter. He knew well at what cost electors maintained their
opinions, and therefore it was that he felt it to be his duty to
support them on the present occasion.
Mr. ELLIOT came there determined to vote for the Bal-
lot, as he thought that the voters throughout the country re-
quired protection.—(Cries of " Hear, hear," and o _Divide.")
His object was to protect the voter.—(Cries of ' pear,
hear, hear," and " Divide.") If he understood correctl? the
Noble Lord (Lord John Russell), his intention was to pro-
tect the voter, and that he meant to propose a measure which-
would produce that effect. If the Noble Lord gave now an
intimation that it was his intention to propose any such
measure, lie had such perfect confidence in the Noble Lord,
that upon that promise he should rely, and not vote that night
for the Ballot--( Cries of " Oh, oh," and " Divide")—but if
no such intimation were given, then, as a matter of justice to
the country, he was bound to give his vote in favour of the
motion of the Honourable Member for London.
Mr. W. 0. STANLEY neat aitcmpted to address the
house, but the shouts and cries of the Opposition Members
were continued with such vehemence that it Was impossible to
hear a word spoken by him. He had hoped, t:'. said, that he
was in the society of gentlemen. —(Cries of " is ear, hear,"
and " Divide.") Last year he had given his vote in opposi-
tion to the Ballot—he had since changed his opinion with
respect to it, and he could assure the House that for no otiser
reason than this was he desirous of addressing them.—( Hear,
and cries of " Divide.") He confessed he had heard with
great sorrow the Noble Lord the Secretary for the Home De-
partment declare himself opposed to this question. That Noble
Lord entertained an erroneous opinion with respect to the
prevalence of intimidation. He could assure the Noble Lord
that if he had been in distant parts of the country he would
find that coercion prevailed to a very alarming extent. Ho
would not attempt to go into the arguments on this question,
as they had been much more ably stated than he could possi-
bly state them ; but he would relate one instance of coercion
which he had seen in the public pavers. It was a letter from
" A Consistent Conservative," to his banker.—( Hear, hear,
hear.) The letter was as follows :—" Dear Sir,—As a.
consistent Conservative, I feel I cannot continue my pro-
perty in your hands, since you have supported a party in the
borough which is bent upon carrying such measures through
Parliament as are likely, I conceive, to disturb the security
of private property—( Loud cheers from the Opposition)—
and to destroy the established institutions of the country—
( Renewed cheers from the same quarter)—institutions which
this property has been entrusted to me to support. I there-
fore beg to close my account with you."—(Cheers from the
Ministerial benches, re-echoed by the Opposition.) Honour-
able Members opposite seemed by their cheers to approve of
this proceeding ; but the gentleman who wrote this letter, as
if there could be any doubt of his intention, stated afterwards,
at a public dinner, that seeing the great influence which a
banking business gave, he was not willing to neutralise his own
exertions by contributing to an influence that was exercised
against him, and he therefore closed hie ,account.—( Cheers
from the Opposition.) Did Hon. Gentlemen teTposite approve
of these practices ?—(Renewed cheers.) The ;Jon. Gentle-
men opposite seemed to think that they bag a right ;o do what
they
.liked with their own.—(Continued cheers from :he Op-
position.) If such conduct were generally followed, what
would become of society. If the principle were carried out
to the full extent, society would fall asunder.—( Hear, beer.) .
He could state other circumstances. He had heard of a let-
ter from two clergymen to two other clergymen, begging
them to retract the solemn promises which they had given to
vote for a particular person.—(Cries of " Name, name."). He
would not name them. —( Hear, hear.) They were well known
in the county he represented, and were known, he doubted
not, to some lion. Members of` chat House. He had only to
say that, us the only mea'is of proteotion that he at prevent saw
against coercion and intimidation, he felt bound to advocate
the Ballot.—( Hear.)
Mr. SL ANEY said that as the town \Nhich he had the
honour to represent had sent up to that Hoose a petition,
most respectably signed, in favour of the Ballot, it was with
pain and regret that he felt compelled by a sense of duty to
vote contrary to the feelings of so many of those whom he
so highly respected. He felt bound to vote against the pro-
position of the Honourable Member for London. Ile ac-
knowledged that intimidation had taken place, and he r •
gretted it ; but he believed it had taken place only lately.
At the last election party hostility had been carried to a much
greater extent than at any of the six elections in which it had
been his misfortune to be engaged. The two parties consi-
dered that they were contending for power for the whole of a
new reign, and the magnitude of the occasion excited the
men of the respective parties to make every effort for tho
purpose of gaining a majority. Under these circumstances
of excitement both parties had recourse to means which in
cooler moments they would shrink from. Were they, for
for the sake of curing an evil which had arisen from tem-
porary excitement, to introduce a change, and such a
change, into the institutions of the country ? Many reasons
had been stated again the proposiOon of the Hon. :Member for
London ; but there was one, in his opinion, still stronger
reason than any that had been adveoecd to. It was this,
namely, that this proposition would alter the franchise of
the whole kingdom. The Reform Bill, when agreed to, was
considered as finally settled, at least for the tee.—(Cries
of " Oh, oh.") He contended that this was one of the great
claims in favour of that Bill ; and in order that the Bil; should
have that effect, it was of a larger, a wider, and a more estten-
sive nature than the most sanguine Reformer expect .d.
That B:11 had been received with approbation on all sides;
and never had there been so strong an expression of the pub.
lie voice in favour of any measure—a measure which was said
at the time to be final. He did not mean that no alteration
should take place in its details, but that as far as regarded
the franchise it should be final. But unfortunately there were
those who were now discontented with the Reform Bill, and
who broughl forward such measures the Ballot, the Extension
of the Suffrage, the Discontinuaoce of Qualification, the Re-
peal of the Law of Primogeniture, the expulsion of the
Bishops from the House of Lords, anel the Reform of the
House of Lords itself which meant nothfig more or less
than its abolition. Such measures it was Which induced
the people of England, who viewed matters calm:a and con-
siderately, to throw themselves into what was called tLe Con-
servative scale. This it was that produced that reaction
to which, on a former occasion, the Right Honourable Gen-
tlemen the Member for Tamworth alluded. His firm opi-
nion was, that if such measures as the present were pressed
for, the effect would be that that reaction would be increased.
Sir R. PEEL rose and said—A charge has been preferred
against me in the course of this debate, to which I must offer
some refutation. The charge is, that upon the two or three
last occasions on which this question has been discussed, I
have forborne carefully to make any explanation of my senti-
ments. Since 1830 I have on three several occasions de-
clared my objection to the Ballot. I think it deteriorates the
character of the country to prolong too much discussions of
this nature ; and nothing is more painful or revolting than to
have to travel round the same trite and beaten path of old
arguments and speeches ; and I must say, judging from the
speech of the Hon. Gentleman who preferred the charge and
who seconded the motion, judging from the novelty which he
has introduced into the discussion, I think I am able to re-
criminate by saying, that if the Honourable Gentleman had
maintained silence the debate would not have been the worse.
There was indeed one novelty which the Honourable Gentle-
man had introduced into this discussion, and that was so sin-
gular and new-fangled a novelty that it must have bean in-
troduced solely for the purpose of argument. The Hon.
Gentleman has charged me with a confusion of ideas, because
I stated that the elective franchise implied a trust, and he tells
the House that the elective franchise is a right. Now, how
the Hon. Member can charge other people with a confusion of
ideas, because they do not understand that the same privilege
may at the same time be a right and involve a trust, I am at a
loss to understand. I apprehend that I have a right to sit in
this House ; but because I hold that seat for a given time by
a right which is recognised bypthe law of the land, does the
possession of that right emancipate me from the performance
of the trust attached to it ?--( Cheers.) I say, therefore,
that it is perfectly consistent that that which may be held as
a right may also involve the most important of trusts and
public duties.—( Loud cheers.) But I am not to be
considered as being the first who discovered that the elec-
tive franchise is a trust. Supposing that I held this lan-
guage, and held it exclusively, and that I asked what was
the nature and obligation of the electoral trust—supposing
I ;talked that question exclusively, the lion. Gentleman (:Mr.
Ward) might charge me with being the exclusive }wider
of the doctrine. But it was the question thet was asked
by the lion. Mover of the proposition before the House.
The lion. Gentleman (Mr. Ward) finds others besides my-
self who consider the electoral privilege a trust. The Hon.
Member for the city of London, in making his appeal to the
House, said that we were called upon to guard the common-
wealth against breaches of trust committed by coerced bands
of well-intentioned citizens. The Hon. Member for Dublin
put those words into the mouth of voters claiming protection
egainst the attempt made on every side to induce them to for-
feit their trust. The Hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr.
Ward) must, therefore, see that I am not the only man
who considers the elective franchise a trust ; but I believe
that the Hon. Member himself is the only man in England,
Ireland, or Scotland, who ever held that it was not only not
a trust, but that it was a right partaking of all the privileges
votes
telsie ? ----
elective Cheers.) Why
franchise
d
of private property.—(Hear.) If this be so, why does the
Hoocns h
. Gentleman eanvtalne mt apnroottejeetci
protection
ton thef,,r t
hsealveoot
e,
of
he not a trust but a right, and, according to the express
words of the Hon. Member himself, a right in the nos