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

Renewed cries of ".11p,,n0," and, " Seoul, name !") Their
med Aeratest Pallot, ti,01.1,1d that elkTtion by
narne. is eion:-=4:Liwid Che'erS:,) ,Te heik the argum* cnts
ti
open voting was a school of probity and veracity ; that a voter who
had once Sven his word performed it as a matter of course, with-
out let or hindrance from any one. Instead of which, what is the
fact ? Why, the promise of a dependent voter is" respected
just so far as it coincides with the will and the dictates of his
superior. In every other case it is trampled in the dust ; it is
treated as null and void, as if made by a man who is not .cui
:pais ; the very same motives arc held out to him to vote in
spite of his promise as would have been held out if he had
never made any promise. And, Sir, let me ask what class of
promises is it which the pressure of an open canvass thus
cause; to be unwillingly broken ? Precisely the best class or
promises : the free, the heartfelt, and the voluntary promises,
which spring from the sincere preference of the electors who
give them. Under the Ballot all these promises are perfectly
certain to be kept with fidelity : the same free will which
causes them to be originally made will also cause them to be
ultimately kept.—( Cheers.) The only promise which can
possibly be liable to violation under the Ballot is the promise
extorted perforce, which does not carry with it the real feel-
ing and conviction of the giver.—( Hear.) This is the worst
which can possibly happen under the Ballot. But I affirm
that this is what will very rarely happen. For who will go
about to extort from reluctant voters at the point of the
sword these insincere and compulsory premises, when there
can be no power of extorting performance ? Who will be
guilty of an act of ungracious and oppressive interference,
which can answer no purpose, and can only alienate the voter
who is made to suffer such degradation ? The Ballot will
strike at the root of the evil, because it will take away all
motive and all temptation to compel reluctant promises ; and
where no reluctant promises are demanded, no such thing as
breach of promise will be known. I repeat that breach of
promise, so far from being more frequent under the Ballot,
will in point of fact be much less frequent than it is now
under open voting ; for spontaneous promises are sure to be ob-
served, and compulsory promises will not be extorted—( Cheers. )
Looking at the question, Sir, simply as it regards the legiti-
mate obligation and the just estimate of promises, I contend
that the Ballot is preferable to an open suffrage. But I will
not consent to argue the question upon this narrower ground.
I contend that the reference to private promises is neither
the appropriate test, nor even the leading consideration, by
which our choice as to the mode of suffrage ought to be de-
termined. I put in a claim on the part of the country to the
judgment and voice of every elector, anterior to the claim of
any private promise.—( Hear, hear.) The elector is under a
paramount obligation, from which no act of his own can dis-
charge him, to give his vote according to his own conscien-
tious preference.—(Cheers.) If he chooses to make any pro-
mise at all in reference to the disposal of his vote, it must be
at least in conformity with the dictates of his own conscience :
he will then be enabled to perform his promise, and to acquit
himself of his paramount electoral obligation by one and the
same act. But a promise to vote contrary to his own inward
judgment, what is it better than a covenant to commit a dis-
tinct dreach of duty—premeditated breach of a solemn public
duty ?—( Cheers.) If there be in human affairs an immoral
and unlawful covenant, assuredly this is one of the deepest
dye—an agreement to set aside a known public obligation
for the accmplishment of some private purpose—wrong in
the man who gives the pledge, but often excusable from the
dependence of his position ; wrong in the highest degree,
and altogether without excuse or extenuation, in the man
who extorts it. What should we say, Sir, of a plaintiff
in one of your Courts, who should demand from any wit-
ness a pledge that he would deliver false testimony, or
from a Juryman a promise that he would stand out for a
dishonest verdict ? Why, the seal of infamy would be set
upon him for ever. But where is the difference in principle,
or in what respect am I less guilty, if I take advantage of the
dependent position of my tenant or my clerk to force him to
break his electoral trust ? You may tell me that the one act
is more common than the other, and therefore does not imply
the same moral guilt ; I admit that it is so ; but the very
same guilty principle pervades both.—( Loud cheers.) The
Noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, whom he did not
then see in his place, in a speech which he made during the
recess, expatiated with great horror on a declaration made by
the Hon. Member for Dublin, that under the Ballot a man
might shout for West and Hamilton, and yet vote for O'Con-
nell. This, in the Noble Lord's opinion, was the very acme
of immorality—that a man should speak one way and vote
the contrary. Immoral as this may be, Sir, I shall show the
Noble Lord that the same immorality does happen, and
must happen, under the present system of open voting, of
which he is the champion. The man who, under the Bal-
lot, would shout for West and Hamilton, and yet vote for
O'Connell, what does he do now—his heart by the supposi-
tion being with O'Connell ? Why, he votes for West and
Hamilton, to be sure : but wherever he can express his opi-
opinion without constraint, he talks in favour of O'Connell—
he drinks O'Connell's health, and heartily wishes him success.
—( Cheers.) The very same contradiction between vote and
speech—the very same falsehood and immorality which the
Noble Lord denounces as the exclusive attribute of my system
—meets him just as unavoidably on his own. Do what you
will, you cannot avoid it when once the intimidator has put in
his coercive grasp ; immorality and falsehood of one kind or
other, there must be, whether the voting be open or secret.
I say that when the vote is made secret the intimidator will
not interfere any longer, because he has nothing to gain by it;
the lie makes against him instead of making for him, and
therefore he will not cause it to be told.--( Cheers.) You
hear it sometimes argued, Sir, that open voting makes the
elector responsible to the public, and that secret voting
removes that responsibility. But this is a mere abuse of
terms ; I am prepared to show you that there neither is nor
simply
can be any responsibility in the case. Responsibility, in its
only legitimate meaning, can attach to nothing but to the
performance of a man's duty; a man is responsible when he
opinion
is the
sin duty of of
and an eleetor
is liable to loss in the event of discharging his duty badly,
and when he is protected from loss in the event of dis-
chargingwell.
ier hNisolvo,wn
what
pi it d
to
conscien-
tiously, let him be in the minority or in the majority—let
him agree or disagree with whom he may ; my neighbour
and I may both discharge our electoral duty with equal
fidelity, though he votes for a Tory and I vote for a Radical ;
it would be wrong in him to rote as I do ; it would be wrong
in me to vote as he does. Now, Sir, this being the sole duty
of an elector, will any man tell me that publicity of suffrage
makes him responsible for discharging it well ? W.ll any man
tell me that every elector who votes sincerely and conscien-
tiously is protected from loss, and that no elector becomes
liable to loss except when he votes otherwise ? The reverse
is notoriously the fact ; and it is because the reverse is the
fact that the Ballot is demanded.—( Hear, hear.) Let it not
be pretended, then, that publicity makes an elector responsible
for the discharge of his duty ; all that publicity does is to
make him liable to ill usage from those whom he opposes, and
to good usage from those whom he supports. Who will be
found to call this by the imposing title of responsibility ?
( Cheers.) Why, it is only seduction and intimidation under
a new name. And not only does publicity of suffrage contri-
bute nothing to keep a voter in the right way against his will
(which would be the only object of any real responsibility),
but it tends most powerfully to drive him into the wrong way
against his will. In a contested election the public are divided
into partisans on both sides ; no one ever takes the least
thought about tho sincerity of votes; every one thinks that
lie is serving the public by multiplying votes on his
own side, no matter whether these votes refresent
genuine convictions or not. It is thus that the real public
obligation, the genuine electoral conscience, is left des-
titute of all support or guarantee from without, while it
is exposed to assault and importunity of every kind from
those whose good will or ill will bears closely upon the com-
forts of the elector. Such are the effects of an open suf-
frage : so far from creating an efficient public responsibility_
so far from providing new securities for conscientious voting
—it only lets in fresh dangers, and SOW 3 factitious seeds of
evil. Let the elector vote in secret, and the path of
duty becomes at once smooth and easy he will have no
perils to defy, and no temptations to resist. Sir, I shall now
commend my proposition to the judgment of the House, en-
treating from them an impartial and dispassionate decision,
such as the magnitude of the question demands. The fact is
notorious and indisputable, that the representative institutions
of this country have become the prey of internal corruption
and intimidation the form remains inviolate—the ceremonies
are exactly observed—hut that free influence of public con-
science and sentiment, which alone can give to these so-
lemnities any meaning or any value, has been checked and
frozen up at its source.—(Loud cheers.) There is a method
of re-opening this frozen current; there is a method of en-
suring to the real feeling of electors an easy channel and a
certain delivery at the poll-booth ; there is a method
of sweeping away all those interested hindrances which
now rise up to obstruct the faithful performance of electoral
oblige • tion That method is the Ballot an expedient
simple, effectual, and self-operating.—( Loud cheers.) From
look bribery and intimidation'with unaffected
those who upon
censur
e and disgust—from those who feel unshaken faith in
their own politic
al creed, and who disdain to promote it by
the aid of unworthy artifices—from all such persons, to what-
ever party they may belong, I confidently anticipate support,
because I feel that my proposition deserves it. I implore
them not to sit with folded arms, and with a passive resigna-
tion worthy only of Turkish fatalists, whilst the worst plagues
desolate our constituencies ; nor to content themselves with
unavailing complaints, as if it were the destiny of the age to
corrupt and to be corrupted—to intimidate and to be intimi-
dated. Depend upon it, Sir, these vices may be subdued, if
we choose to adopt the right remedy—( Cheers) ;—they
are predominant only because we are supine ; they subsist
only by our toleration or connivance. It is not for us
to complain of corruption and intimidation, while we re-
fuse to honest voters the means of performing their duty
in peace and safety—while we cling to a system of
voting which permits the rights of conscience to be trampled
on with impunity, and holds out an easy traffic to the selfish-
ness of dishonest electors. Under a secret suffrage every
vestige of intimidation will and must disappear ; the inde-
pendence of each separate voter, poor as well as rich, will be
built upon a rock which no violence can disturb and no artifice
undermine. Believing as I do that the exact record of
genuine electoral sentiment, at proper intervals, is the main
purpose and the inestimable blessing of all representative in-
stitutions, I cease not to contend for the Ballot, as a step es-
sential to its attainment ; and I have full conidence in the good
sense and patriotismlof my countrymen, that they will not per-
mit freedom of election to perish for want of its legitimate
guarantee.—( The Honourable Member resumed his seat amidst
loud cheers.)
Mr. WARD rose to second the motion. The Right
Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, had on a former oc-
casion said, that "he would remove all proved abuses ;" and
in this avowal the gentlemen who sat by the Hon. Baro-
net's side expressed their full accordance. If, then, it had
been proved to the Right Hon. Baronet that the present
system was pregnant with proved abuses, that it was fraught

with evils of frightfill magnitude, that the evils were daily
growing lrger, and that they tiere beeomir more apparent
at, eVery succeeding eleetion; would the Hon. Baronet now
retush teo.reas ? He S Mr. Ward) called upon the ftight Hon.
Baronet not to shelter hlm4elf irider the silence which he had
so strict observed on the two lea' tit'esieiens when this sub-
ject was discussed ; he called upon him not to conceal his
opinions, and would ask him whether he would remove the
abuse, and whether he would apply the only remedy which
human ingenuity had as yet been able to suggest.---(Laugh-
ter from the Opposition Benches.) lie supposed that the
Right Hon. Baronet attached some importance to the words
he had used ; he supposed that he was sincere in his profes-
ssions ; and when he heard so often the " cuckoo cry" which
had run through the Tory ranks ever since the publication of
the Tamworth Manifesto, he did fancy that some meaning was
intended by it. If the abuses were so great that the table of
that House was covered with indignant complaints from some
portion of almost every constituency, they had a right to call
on the Right lion. Baronet to say how he would deal with
those abuses, and what remedy he would apply. If the Right
Hon. Baronet derided the suggested means of redress, he
(Mr. Ward) would ask how he would remove the evil, how
he would relieve the people from this proved and much-com-
plained-of abuse ? First, then, he would glance at some part
of this abuse. Since the Reform Bill had been introduced,
the principle and the practice of the electoral system had been
completely at variance. In that Bill an important change had
been made by a Clause introduced by the Noble Marquis, the
Member for Buckinghamshire (Marquis of Chandos) in
favour of the County Constituencies in England.—( Hear,
hear, hear.) They had all beheld the working of that
clause, and he therefore invited the serious consideration of
the Noble Lord to the effects produced, to see whether the
grounds on which he had recommended it to the attention of
Parliament had been established in practice. He (Mr. Ward)
well knew the deep interest which the Noble Lord felt in the
welfare of the yeomanry, not in his own county alone, but
throughout England. He knew how high the Noble Lord
stood in their estimation—how justly high he sto.A.—( Cheers
from the Opposition.) He had no wish to rob the Noble
Lord of any merit, but he wished him to compare his theory
of that clause with its working in practice, not only in Buck-
inghamshire, but elsewhere. The principal reason assigned
for its introduction was the perfect independence of the 501.
voters. It was urged by the Noble Lord that the farmers
were a large, sound, good, honest, and independent class of
men, particularly valuable on account of their independence ;
and that while they were giving a new Constitution to this
country, there was no place for the farmers in the great
charter of liberty. The Noble Lord dwelt much on the
value of these qualities as entitling them to the con-
sideration of the House ; the argument and feeling of
the Noble Lord were shared in by other Members
holding the most opposite political opinions. It was
held by more than one Member that the farmers were
as necessary to the landlord as the landlord was to them.
Lord Western, when a Member of that House, had said that
the farmers were most unquestionably an intelligent and in-
dependent race of men, and that " the Franchise was not
calculated to diminish their independence." The only
person in that House wlao had held language at all opposed
to this was Lord Spencer, then Chancellor of the Exchequer:
he alone denied the existence of this independence, pointed
out the disadvantageous operation of the Franchise upon
their interests as farmers, and the impossibility of exer-
cising it freely without the Ballot ; the Noble Lord had
added that, if the Clause were carried, it would probably
render inevitable the Ballot, which would alone correct
the evils to which the Clause had given rise. As to the
working of the Clause, Lord Spencer had undoubtedly been
a true prophet. On a division, however, the Clause was
carried by the large majority of 232 to 148. The majority
was composed of the Radicals and Aristocracy united ; for
the Radical party had on that occasion coalesced with the
Aristocracy on the principle of extending the suffrage, and
, they were, consequently, to some extent, responsible for the
evils to which the clause bad given rise. It became, how-
ever, a part of the Reform Bill; it was now the law of the
land. He (Mr. Ward) had no wish to see it repealed ; but
he did wish to see the evils corrected, and that it should be
made what it ought to be, and professed to be. He called
upon the Noble Lord to assist in the correction of the evils
which had occurred—he called upon him to work out the
principles which he had professed—( Hear, hear)—he called
upon that Noble Load to secure the independence for which
he had vouched, and to render the yeomanry what he con-
ceived them in theory, but which they were not in fact. As
the case now stood, the franchise was a curse rather than a
blessing. Did not the Noble Lord know that it had been a
fatal boon to every honest man who happened to entertain
different political views from those which were held by his
landlord? He (Mr. Ward) was aware that a great portion of
the farmers agreed in the political views of their landlords—
(Tory cheers)—but the Ballot would make no difference in
this respect; it would not make the farmers Radical, nor
would it compel them to vote for the Radical candidate. It
would ascertein the real sentiments of the yeomanry, whether
they were Radical or Tory. Why, then, did honourable gen-
tlemen opposite cheer the sentiment that many of the farmers,
from mistaken views, as he (Mr. Ward) thought, supported
the Tory candidates ? Why they opposed the Ballot, unless
they doubted the prevalence of the feeling, and were afraid of
the test—( Hear, hear)—was a mystery which he (Mr. Ward)
could not explain. Did not the Noble Lord know, that so
far from the tenants being allowed to remain independent, and
vote as they liked, their votes were appropriated by the land-
lords ? If they were even indisposed to acquire the right, and
neglected to register, there were many instances in which they
were compelled to do so, and if they were objected to that they
were forced to sustain their right? lie could quote one instance
which occurred in the West Riding of York, and in which
he believed the Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland
(Lord Morpeth) could vouch for the facts. Many of the
landlords had changed their political opinions. Let them do
so if they pleased, that was but just ; but was it because they
changed that their tenants must also change ?—( Hear, hear.)
Must they veer about from Liberalism to Conservatism, con-
trary to their own reason and to their own opinions, and al-
though they might not have the same interests to servo
which induced their landlords to alter the course of their
political conduct? Or should it be said that they should act
upon the bidding of their landlords, in ignorance and in
slavery ?—(" No," from the Opposition.) The Noble Marquis
said, " No." He would state a case, for the truth of which
he could vouch. In the West Riding of York the tenants
had gone to the Noble Viscount by whom they were repre-
sented, and had begged that their votes might be objected to,
alleging as a reason, that they were anxious not to offend
either party by voting contrary to their desires, and the ob-
jections in some instances were absolutely made.--( Hear.)
He vouched for the fact of such applications having been
made—(hear, hear)—and he would ask what franchise had
those persons? The votes of the tenants were in all cases
looked upon as the chattels of the landlord, in which they had
a right to deal, and of which they might dispose—( Hear,
hear)—and even the preliminary step of not voting was con-
strued into a species of crime, which the :tenants were not
permitted to commit. The effect of the clause in the Reform
Act was to divide all large estates into holdings of 501. each,
and to give the landlords a species of feudal right over the
votes. This had been the pernicious effect of the clause in
many parts of the country ; and during the last two registra-
tions, where a farmer had held a farm of 2001. yearly value,
he had been compelled to join his son, or his nephew, or some
other person at all events, in his lease, to increase the num-
ber of serfs or slaves on the estate, and in effect to revive the
state of things which existed formerly in Gatton and Old
Sa-
rum.—( Hear, hear.) This clause had been introduced by the
Noble Marquis himself, and he would call on him to endea-
vour to remove the stigma which he had cast on his own cha-
racter, and to join the Hon. Member who had brought the pre-
sent motion before the House, in endeavouring to secure the
future welfare of the country, by procuring the adoption of
the system of Vote by Ballot.—( A laugh from the Opposi-
tion.) lion. Gentlemen might laugh, but even more impro-
bable things than this had happened, and he did not despair
vet of seeing Hon. Gentlemen opposite actually join the Hon.
Member for London in his attempts to give something like an
equality to the franchise, and to extend it to the farmers. The
Right Hon. Baronet opposite bad said at the commencement
of the Session that the Constitution might be cut and carved,
and altered and remoulded, but that such a system as that pro-
posed could never be adopted, for that it would not suit the
interests of the country. Let the House come to the test, and
they would find that the Conservatives would never oppose
any measure which left the power of coercion safely is their
own hands.—( Hear, hear.) He would, however, call upon
them to join in supporting this measure, for he was prepared to
say that it was a measure which could do nothing but produce
a general benefit and a general satisfaction throughout all con-
stituencies. The Ballot would not destroy the existence of
proper feeling in the minds of the people nor the exercise of
it—( Hear, hear, hear)—and he did not suppose that it would
destroy the influence of the Noble Marquis opposite ; but he
was sure that if he should come forward and support it, it
would at once remove from him all suspicion of his having ob-
tained his seat by the exercise of coercion. He would now
come to that other argument so often used, and which he had
so many Hon. Gentlemen opposite cheer; that the Ballot
would substitute something like duplicity and deceit for the
frank and manly, and old English system which now so
happily existed.—( Hear, hear.) Now, he would ask Hon.
Gentlemen opposite to tell him what there was frank and
manly in the system of men strongly in favour of one party
being carried to the poll by force, decked out with the colours'
of the party opposed to them in polities, to vote for the can-
didate whom they disliked ? The House was told that the
Ballot would introduce a degradi rg system of falsehood ; but
a very clever pamphlet had recently been published by a
Mr. Dennison, in which he said--" The employer and the
employed, will thus be in the situation of two antagonist tac-
ticians. And we shall have Livy's description of the rival
stratagem of Hannibal and Fabius reduced to the scale of pri-
vate discord, and realised in the petty arena of an English
farm yard. But which will be victerious ? Here we behold
the stout sagacious farmer hedged in on every side, and
guarding against all surprise ; then the subtle, active, pry-
ing agent, keenly intent on his own object, and resort-
ing to all the crafty wiles that practised ingenuity can
suggest to pluck out the heart of his mystery—flatter-
ing the wife, coaxing the children, bribing the do-
mestics, wheedling the friends, seducing the man him-
self into a state of semi-intoxication, in order to drown his
caution and stir up his courage, and then take down his
words ; converting casual expressions into open avowals,
putting the question boldly, and then construing hesitation or
silence into assent." If he could contemplate such a state
of things as this arising from the introduction of the Ballot,
he should at once say, " Let not an experiment which is
so dangerous in its consequences be tried." But he was con-
vinced that such a representation, if applied to the esi's
which might follow the adoption of the Ballot, would be
grossly exaggerated and quite untrue ; and he would ask
whether there could be anything more un-English—for that I

was the favourite word which was now used—than the system
of espionage thus pointed Out ?—(Hear.) Was there one
Member of that House who would support any plan which
could lead to such results as that ? He would not believe
that there was, he would not do the House the injustice to
believe It ..es.( Hear.) There might be acts of violence in
times when party feelings ran high, but he could not think
that any Honourable Member could use such means as those
oointed out.—( Hear, hear.) He did not then attach much
importane'A to this argument, hut firmly believed it to
he founded on false grounds. Then it was supposed that
the landlord had a species of right to dispose of the
tenant's vote, and that no measure ought to be passed which
wtmld put the tenant in a position in which he might
evade the power of his landlord.—( Hear, hear, hear- )
Now if this was correct, he was willing at once to admit that
the principle of the Ballot was a mistake • but the right of
the tenant to vote was ve-ted in himself and not in the land-
lord, and the latter was forbidden to interfere with or to limit
the exercise of the franchise. In large towns he admitted that
the mischief existed to a comparatively trifling extent, be-
cause the protection of landlords was less called for than in
the country districts, and the evil of intimidation was not care
tied so far ; but the encroachments on the part of the landlords
and of customers were growing fast--( Hear, hear)—and some
means must be adopted to prevent their having that effect
which it was contrary to justice should be produced. Surely
nothing could be more preposterous than that a person should
exercise an influence over a voter merely because he hap-
pened to be a customer at his shop; but yet this was a right
which was claimed to a very great extent in London and other
large towns. He never saw anything more beautiful or more
perfect than the organization of the system at the last two
Westminster elections, and he never saw anything which re-
dounded more to the credit of Hon. Gentlemen opposite ; but
at the same time he must declare that he never saw anything
more dangerous than the system of intimidation which was
used. He saw people carried up to the poll by their richest
customers, and deprived of all opportunity of exercising their
own opinions and feelings in voting, and compelled to vote
for the candidate to whom, perhaps, they were opposed in
principles and politics. He said that this was a most danger-
ous symtern—( Hear)—but he would no doubt be told that at
another election there had been interference of another sort,
and by another party. Ho had no doubt of it, but he objected
to interference at all. He himself had doubts as to the extent
of the good effect which this measure would produce in small
constituencies; but in large constituencies, where all the votes
could not be purchassd, he felt no hesitation in saying that it
would have a most beneficial effect, and that it would at once
put an end to the crime of bribery. While referring to this
subject of bribery he would call the attention of the House to
the means adopted to prevent its discovery when the offence had
been committed. At the last election the bribery oath had been
actually administered by the persons bribing to those bribed, in,
order to render the evidence of the latter useless, in the event of
their afterwards confessing they ;had been guilty of accepting
money for their votes. He would ask if anything could be con-
ceived which was more disgraceful than this system of per-
jury_
which was thus adopted ?—( Hear, hear.) And he would
ask whether this motion of the Hon. Member for London was
not of such a character as was likely to produce such a re-
sult as would effectually put a stop to such proceedings
( Hear.) Then the question was, could secrecy be insured by
Ballot? This question had been so often mooted, and a ea'
tisfactory answer had been so often given to it, that h°
thought no doubt could exist of the fact, and besides he be-
lieved that if Hon. Gentlemen opposite were not convinced 01
the fact they would not oppose the motion. Then whet
other objection was there? The only one which was Pu",
forth was, that the Ballot would change the national character,
for that it was the nature of Englishmen to speak out. Why'
that was the very point on which the friends of the Ballot
complained now, for the present system prevented them from
speaking out.--( Hear.) Nothing of the real feeling of the
country could now be ascertained. But let secret Jot'
frages be granted, and then there could be no doubt that
the real opinions of the people would be learned, The
Honourable Member for Tynemouth said that it had failed
in America. But it had been adopted in only half the States,
the other half continuing the system of open voting, Had the_
.Hon. Member shown that any of the States which had adopted
it had afterwards gone back to open voting ? He had not ; but
he (Mr. Ward) was piepared to show, on the contrary, that 5,e;
vcral of the States, Connecticut, Louisiana, and Kentucky, w
example, had actually since adopted the Ballot--(Hear
hear, hear.) Surely this was not a proof of its failures,
It was said that the franchise, as now established, was notd,
right given to the people, but only a trust placed in their hat?
and the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, in the last speech wlued
he made upon this subject, on the 2d of June, 1835, aPPe.'lrea‘
to have a confusion of ideas which was quite unusual with hit
lice said he " could see no reason why, if the Ballot should r°
considered good for the constituents, it should not also bo
good for the representatives, and why the system of voting by
Ballot should not be introduced into the House of Commo_onusld
Now, a more complete confusion of ideas than this he 'Leh a
not conceive. Hon. Members were sent to that House
nsti-
trust delegated to them by their constituents, and the "
edT
.
tuencies had a right to know how the trust was performu
( Hear, hear)—but the electors were a constitutional bo, Y;
to
and there was no person from whom they derived their rig°
as electors. Voters were acted upon at present by t 7,,
causes, a superior and inferior cause, and the mischief n"
produced just as much by the dislike which would be known
to be expressed by the landlord of the voter as it was by the
open and violent expressions of a mob at Huddersfield or
elsewhere. But the right was not acquired from any persons
or any body of persons, but from the law, and when it was
once obtained it was perfect in all its parts. It wes the futi-
lity of all the arguments which were urged against the Ballot,
coupled with the feeling which existed in favour of it, which
had tended to work up the public mind to its present states
There was a feeling gradually rising up which was becoming(
every day more wild, and which proceeded from a sense
wrong which existed in the people.--( Hear.) Was there
any doubt of the fact that there had been petitions preseuteucil.
to that House from almost every large constituency in fasTtue
of the Ballot ; and was it not the fact that in those cont.e
encies from which petitions had not been presented, the Ifs!.
of the landlords had been the real cause which prevented.,h;
step being taken ?—( Hear, hear)—for that,
had been sent, it would be deemed open rebellion againste
landlords.—( Hear, hear.) There was no doubt, hao7vceri
that after the long period during which this question had d
been
under consideration, and the observations which h.
d tho
made upon the subject, the people of England believe
mbarthaws t°
question was one only of expediency, as to time, and for
principle. The declaration of the Noble Lord the Me L. the
if any petittibe
Stroud, which was made before the commencement 0,
_,31
Session, had given an importance to the present debate, and
to the division which was now likely to take place, and 'Lh
ear,
it would not have obtained under other eircumstances.—( the
hear.) The people were most anxious to know how fa
opinions so expressed were tho individual opinions of the Noble
Lord, and how far the Members of the Government were preci
pared to identify themselves with them. They bore in
of
the opinions expressed by all the different Members of t
Government, and they anxiously looked to see whether they
really entertained them.—( Hear, hear.) There was one IVO
Hon. Baronet in the Cabinet (Sir J. C. Hobliouse) who once
represented Westminster, and who was formerly a most enthu-
siastic admirer of the Ballot, and he at least should now be
consistent in the opinion which he expressed, because, hovraver
natural the change might be, considering with whom fortune
had joined him as a colleague, yet his change of opinion vveui
at least tend to shake the opinion of the public in favour of
public men. There was another Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr.
Poulett Thomson) who was returned by the constituency which
he represented Kith the utmost confidence, without solieita-
tion, without canvass; but the time had now corns at which
all opinions entertained in favour cf the Ballot must find
expression in that House.—( Hear, hear.) He saw another
Hon. and Gallant Member ( Sir Hussey Vivian) in his
place, whose constituency, to the number of 2,000, had signed
a petition in favour of the Ballot. He surely would not hesi-
tate in the course which he should adopt, and in giving his
support to the motion of the Honourable Member for Lon-
non. From all these gentlemen, and from many more whom
he could enumerate, would not the country expect a plain
" aye" or " no," for or against the motion ? He trusted that
the answer which should be given would be at once satisfac-
tory to the Honourable Members and to the country.—( Hears
hear.) But he would call upon them to reflect deeply on the
consequences of the vote which they might give ; and he
must express his conviction that anything like a Government
opposition to the motion, in which the country was so deeply
interested, would have for its effect the production of a new
combination, most important to the country, and to this House-
Mr. SYDNEY HERBERT rose, but from the low ton°
of voice in which he addressed the House many of his iob-
servations were inaudible. He declared that he believed
that the real effect of any measure being carried, founded
on the motion of the Honourable Gentleman opposite. would
be to convert those who were now Radicals into Consetva-
tives. He agreed with the Honourable Member who had last
spoken, that intimidation was a great evil, but he
thought that the Honourable Member for London had laid
too great a stress on the after-dinner states of the differ-
ent candidates. The Honourable Gentleman had expatiated
too much on the proposed remedy, without showing that it
would really have the effect which was suggested.---(
Hear. )
He was of opinion that it would be impossible to make the
specialties of an act of Parliament divide all the numerous
interests which would be brought forward. The priesthood
of Ireland must be remembered, and the influence they Pro-
duced on the minds of the people by the power of supersti-
tion.—( Hear, hear.) They had the fact proved in the Com-
mittee, of its having been extorted in the confessional for whom
the husband intended to vote.—(No, no.) And they also had
the statement of Father Mahon having threatened the
electors that he would visit them with the mitigated Pu-
nishment of massacre in this world, and eternal damnation in
the world to come.—( )
No, no. He objected also to the
assumption of the morality of the measure, for an honed
voter would entertain doubts as to giving a false answer
to the question respecting the mode in which lie gave
his vote. The right of voting was a trust, and it was
too much to assert that the elector should not be at
liberty to vote for whom he pleased, and whom he considered
the best qualified, and should not be responsible to public Opi-
nion for hit conduct. Surely his brother electors and the
non-electors had a right to know bow a person had exercised
the trust which had been reposed in him. The Ballot, more-
over, would not give impunity to the honest man—it would
only give impunity to the rogue. He was sure that the Mem-
ber for London did not wish to do anything to demoralise the
people of this country, but he (Mr. Herbert) was satisfied that.
the adopting this measure would lead to such a result ; and if
the Hon. Member entertained the same opinion as himself, he
was convinced that he would oppose the project of which he
was so ardent an advocate. Again, in looking into a late pro-
duction of Miss Martineau, one of the chief disciples of the
Utilitarian school, he found that that authoress expressed the
disappointment she felt at the mode in which the Ballot