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

Why is not this question left rather as an open question, on
'Wald! each Minister may exercise his own discretion ? We
know that in tie Government there are many friends to the
ballot ; why, then, are they now prevented from giving their
powerful assistance to a measure of which they once were
the able supporters? Why are their lips to be closed ui 11-1-
teal of office ? I trust that before long the rjoyern-
ment, or. rather the anti-ballot Members of the Go-
•sernment, will change their course pa question t end
if they will not themselves bring
.it iorward a. a. Uovern-
ment measure, that they will at least lee.s7.: it
as an open
question, and allow their colle;.(guos are in favour of it
to speak and to vote accor- their previously avowed
opinions. Public opi,n)°l, is 'setting in in favour of the ballot
with a steady flow. 'mu may for a season stop by your ob-
stllas thele advaT ~4- e.zi„ tide ; hut it must eventually rise above
a barrie, a'ad carry you before it with resistless force. I
cannot bettsr Conclude what I hare to say on this subject thin
by quoti ag the words of one of the chief men in the country :
althee,gh they were not spoken on this question, they are most
nt::..ifeable to it : the words are these:-s" The great disease
ti society, the great impediment to quiet government, the
great evil of the day, the greatest prevailing abuse at present
is, that every one thinks he luta a right to employ td. influence
over another; each practices it, and each exclaims against its
practice in a third person. The landiard enforces it on his
tenant—the customer over his tradesman ; they force con-
science, and they drive persons against their will to the poll,
to vote contrary to their own wishes. I say, then, upon whatever
side this influence is exercised, it is a cruel tyranny and a
groan injustice. I saw that it is a great evil ; it is one, too, pre-
vailing in a greater degree in this than in any other country,
:and that in no other country but this, where there is a popular
'form of government, does it prevail." These arc sentiments
whick would do honour to any man ; they are the honest, the
manly, the straightforward sentiments of'a truly liberal-minded
man ; they are words spoken only a few weeks past, by the
Prime Minister of this country. He is the most popular—yes,
Sir, he is still the most popular, and he is still deservedly the
most popular, Minister who ever governed this country. To
me these words are as a good omen of our future and not very
distant success in carrying this all-iinportant question of the
Ballot.—(Cheers.)
Lord DALMENY said that if any thing could convince
him that the Ballot was a desirable system it would have been
the clear and eloquent statement of the Hon. Member for
Lorvlon—( Hear, hear)—but after closely attending to the
discussions which had taken place upon the subject for three
aoccessivc Sessions, he had become mere and more convinced
that such a system would be most pernicious.—(llear, hear.)
The Ballot would relieve the elector from all the responsibility
which he at present owed to his fellow electors. Who, he
would ask, were the parties who were shouting for the Ballot ?
Precisely those who on all other occasions loudly advocated
entire publicity ? The Ballot would not enable the voter to
vote according to the dictates of his conscience, because
the same influence of the landlord which was now exerted to
make the tenant vote in a particular way, would be put into
ef!ect to prevent him from voting at all.—( Hear, hear.) He
denied too that the Ballot would produce that entire secrecy
as to votes which was attributed to it. He would never sanc-
tion any system which could only reach the perfection ascribed
to it by systematizing falsehood, and which made secresy the
guarantee of honesty.—(Hear, hear.) He would leave it to
others to compare the fine old English principle of independent
and fair voting, with the mean, low, crafty, pusillanimous, and
dissembling spirit which would be engendered by the Ballot.—
(Oh, oh, and Hear.) The best information he had received
from, parties acquainted with the working of the Ballot in
America showed it to be ridiculously inefficient there.
'Dr. BOWRING said when he visited the cantons of
:Switzerland he was told that the Ballot had had the effect
there of introducing peace into the community, and that
it had been done mare to establish harmony and prevent
corruption than any experiment that had been made.—
(, Hear, hear.) It was known generally, and the Noble
Lord must know, that even amongst his constituents the
question of the Ballot had made great progress ; indeed,
lie must feel that if there was any one thing more than
another which was calculated to put in peril his situation
in that House, it was such a speech as he had made
that night, and there never was a question which had made
:such rapid progress in the public mind as this.—( Hear, hear,
hear.) One of the Noble Lord's objections to the Ballot was
that it was un-English. He would maintain, on the contrary,
that it was not an un-English principle. What was asked was
that the people of England should be enabled to do what they
Considered right. If a man was in so independent a situation
'that he could proclaim his votes to the world without sacri-
fice, there was no reason why he should not do so ; the Ballot
would not prevent him.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. EWART said, if in America the Ballot was not fully
practised, it was because it was found efficient when it was
required. In his conversations with Americans, he had asked
them, " Do you invariably use the Ballot ?" and the answer he
obtained was, " That they did not because they felt that the
power they possessed of resorting to its protection was a gua-
rantee against oppression, and he was satisfied that the same
pewer would give equal protection in this country." In France
the power lay dormant till it was called into operation by the
'despotism of the Restoration ; and the Noble Lord called on
them to show him their mechanism to carry the Ballot into
effect before he gave his consent to the measure. He denied,
however, that the success of the measure depended on any
peculiarly ingenious mechanical contrivance. In France and
America the mechanism had not failed, and it had succeeded
also in the clubs and vestries of this country. He had con-
stantly voted in favour of the Ballot, and he should continue
to vote in the same way.
Colonel THOMPSON observed it had been said that
voting was a trust, and therefore it ought not to be done in
secrecy ; but was it supposed that the voter would any better
execute his trust because he was exposed to the chance of
oppression ?—(Cheers.)—and the Noble Lord also said that it
tvas opposed to the spirit of the institution for any one in whom
A trust was vested to be allowed to vote in secret. Now he
thought he could show cases in which the spirit and the con-
stitution and the law were directly opposed to this view, and
in which the voter under very important circumstances was
restricted to voting in secret, not being allowed to vote in any
other way. He alluded to military and naval courts martial.
Those who sat on courts martial had a most important office
to perform. They sat on the life and honor of their fellow
creatures, and it was demanded of them to vote secretly—why ?
Because it was thought that this practice afforded the best
security for a pure decision; because it was considered that
this was the more effectual method of ensuring the maximum
of good and the minimum of evil. Every man declared so-
lemnly that he would not divulge the votes or proceed-
ings of the courts martial. There was another case in which
art officer declared, not on his oath but on his honor, that
he would divulge any vote or opinion given by any
Member of the body, or even his own. That he thought was
an excellent principle, and ought to be adopted by the sup-
porters of the Ballot. What was its effect? It was this; no
man asked the officers how they had voted, and no man perse-
noted them for not telling, because it was known that the an-
swer would he, " You are asking me to declare that which I
have undertaken not to declare." He put it to Hon. Gentle-
men whether that principle would not be advantageously
adopted in legislating for the Ballot.
Mr. BRODIE made a few observations which were inau-
dible. We understood him to say that he should not vote on
the present occasion.
Mr. VILLIERS said the effect of the Ballot would be, that
men would not promise their votes, and canvassing would be
Put an end to ; for who would trouble themselves to canvass
for votes when they had no means of telling whether the pro,
raise given -would be violated or not ? The Hon. Gentlemen
°Ppositq would, no doubt, vote against the motion, but they
did oot come forward in defence of the opinion on which that
v"...e would be given. He advocated the Ballot, because lie
'ores aware that it was the best protection for the pure exer-
eise of the franchise.—(Hear, hear.) The tendency of pub-
feeling in this country for the last twenty years was to de-
Mocratic power. Public opinion supported every measure
which tended to the extension of that power. Yet those who
opposed it exclaimed, they prophccied, that it would cause
some injury to the country, something. destructive to the wel-
fare of the nation. Every one of these predictions had been
Falsified. He agreed with the Hon. Member for the City, in
thinking that a gre,at moral advantage would be gained in
the Vote by PP2.lOt, aed that it would improve both the cha-
'eeter of *2ae candidates and the constituents. It would teach
the oo:aclidate that he would not secure his seat without deser-
\itig the good opinion of his constituents—without securing
that good ()Onion it would be useless for him to ask for the votes
of his constituents. It would, too, be for the advantage of
the people. For men then to get into Parliament, the head,
rather than the head-money, would he considered.--( Hear. )
Tflose who opposed the Ballot he believed, did not assign the
peal reason for doing so. He believed, so contradictory were
the arguments of these persons, that if all the arguments used
tq opposition to the Ballot were placed together, they would
°o found to be answers to one another.—( Hear, hear.)
Lord DALMENY explained.
Mr. W. ROCHE thought there was no measure more
:ikely to afford satisfaction to tho country than that proposed
6Y the Hon. Member for London, and lie was satisfied that
Itnue could be found more congenial to the wishes of the people.
• Mr. ROI3IN SON stated that if he thought with the Hon.
"number for Wolverhampton, that the Ballot would have the
Orect of improving the constituency of the country, and the
character of that House, be would be one of its supporters ;
15at as it was, because from the best consideration that he could.
Rive to the question, that he had come to an opposite concha.
i°ni that he should now feel b•-,und to vote against such an
tlinovation upon the established institutions of the coon-
He had himself the honour of representing a very
4rge constituency, and although many of them were
favourable to the Ballot, yet still there were an im-
me•
nse majority, and in that majority were to be included
,'!(, ,poorer classes, who were against the Ballot, or were in-
(aS "if:rent respecting it. The elective franchise he regarded
a• public trust, and should therefore he openly exercised.
'here were Members of that House who would, he was sure,
tlt that they would be very glad if they could give their
l'r,`ltos tinder c-over of the Ballot.—( Hear, hear, from Mr.
:I,r,°to, and other Members. It seemed that that was admit-
Hear, hear.) He was only stating that Members were
lisTa called upon to give their votes in the execution of a
duty, •h• h were contrary to the wishes of their con-
14„tituents, andl4 thatic they would be pleased to let their consti-
4,"ts suppose that they had voted directly the opposite._.
re an cheers from Mr. Grote, and other Members.) He
fl',7embered putting the question in this way to a deputa,tion
;"41 a Political Union, who asked him to support the Ballot ;
th
ough refused to do so, every one of those persons
°„te.,(l for him. He should feel it to be his duty to oppose the
t6'.,,t',on of the Hon. Member for the City of London.
The House then divided—
Ayes
N9C3

88
139

Majority agminst the motion -51

C. BULLER Obtained leave to bring —in a Bill to
amend the law relating to Notaries Public.
Lord J. RUSSELL moved for leave to bring
.in a Bill for
the *Lett Convenient division of counties intn polling districts
tat' the election of Members of Parl'aitenty and taking ti.e
poll in one day.
Mr. FORSTE was understoxl to point the Noble Lord's
attenildti to the inconvenience of taking the poll in contiguous
counties, on the Fame day.
Leave was the given to bring in the Bill,
FACTORY ACT.
Mr. HINDLE Y moved for leave to bring in a Bill to
amend the prese .t Factory Act.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL wished the Hon. Member to ex-
plain his reason for introducing the measure during the present
session.
Mr. HINDLE Y felt sorry to be obliged to obtrude himself
upon the attention of the House on the present occasion, be-
cause he knew, that in the minds of many Hon. Members, the
Factory question was considered to have been disposed of by
the vote of the other nighr. Now, though the friends of the
Factory children were glad to have succeeded in inducing the
Government to withdraw the measure of the President of the
Board of Trade, yet they were desirous of seeing an effective
measure substituted in its place. It would be in the recollec-
tion of the House, that all the statements used by the oppo-
nents of the Right Hon. Gentleman's proposition on its second
reading, admitted the necessity of a change in the present
Act, but deprecated that proposed by the Right Hon. Gentle-
man, as being a retrograde movement in the cause of humanity
and justice. He (Mr. Hindley) considered that the enforce-
ment of the present law would be productive of great incon-
venience both to masters and men. This view of the subject was
confirmed by an article in a newspaper of great circulation in the
manufacturing districts, the Leeds Mercury, in which the conse-
quences of leaving the:law in its present shape were thus stated:—
" The present law will therefore remain in force, according to
which no child can be employed in any mill more than eight
hours a day on the average, who has not attained the age of
thirteen years, or at least whose ordinary strength and ap-
pearance'4lo not bespeak that age, without subjecting the
master to a heavy penalty." * * " The effect of these re-
strictious will be, that, except perhaps in half a dozen mills, no
children under thirteen years will be employed at all; or they
will be employed in open and entire disregard of the law."
* * * "In the numerous manufacturing villages, where
so great a proportion of our woollen cloth and fancy goods are
made, the law will be wholly impracticable; because children
of the legal age cannot be obtained ; and the mills must there-
fore either be shut up, or be worked in defiance of the law."
* * * " The consequence, as we have said before, will be,
either that at least three-fourths of the mills must be shut
up, or that the law will be set at defiance.' " * * *
" Such will be the effects of the law, if it should be enforced ;
and every workman, as well as every master in the country, is
subject to it. If it should be evaded, how frightful an amount
of perjury must be committed in the evasion ! If it should be
set at nought, what a pretty lesson our Legislators will then be
giving to the people, of respect for the laws and the law-makers !"
He thought, therefore, that a change ought to be made, and
he should therefore propose an uniform time for all children
under twenty-one years of age, namely ten hours per day.
Mr. LABOUC H ERE said it was the general feeling that
the present Act had not had a fair trial, and the Bill, if now
allowed to be introduced, would create great excitement in the
manufacturing districts.
Lord ASHLEY would be bound to support the Bill if
pressed, though he had advised the Hon. Meniber not to
bring it forward, as this was not the proper period, and
pressing of it now would do more injury than service to the
cause.

Mr. WA SON observed that the necessity of some altera-
tion was admitted on all hands.
Mr. G. F. YOUNG thought the motion, though doubtless
well-intentioned, ill-timed, and hoped it would be withrawn.
He thought the Ten Hours' Bill was the only practical safe-
guard thrown round the defenceless children. The Hon.
Member was only embarrassing the question of relief to the
children.
Sir J. C. HOBHO USE was understood to say that the
Government plan should be allowed a fair trial, and that it
was injudicious to interfere with it. He thought the Hon.
Member should not press his motion for the present.
Mr. M. PHILLIPS would ask the Hon. Member did he
expect that this Bill, if introduced, could be carried this ses-
sion ? If he could not, was it not doing mischief to introduce
it for the purpose of exciting agitation ? That at least would
be its effect ; and another effect would be, to produce a greater
infraction of the present law. At this late period of the ses-
sion they should not legislate further.
Mr. WORTLEY thought if the Hon. Gentleman had not
a fair prospect of carrying his Bill this session he ought not to
precipitate legislation upon it, especially if it would disturb the
public mind. He was most anxious for the relief of the chil-
dren, but he thought the present proposition could effect no
good.

Mr. HINDLE Y, in answer to the Hon. Member for Hali-
fax, said that the Bill which the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir J.
Hobhouse) had introduced in 1831 had been carried through
in six weeks ; and who supposed that the present Session
would not last at least that length of time ?—( Oh, oh.) Why
let the House consider the Stamp Consolidation Bill which
the Chancellor of die Exchequer had in hand, and which he
certainly considered would alone occupy several weeks. As
to the charge which had been made against him of inconsis-
tency, in bringing forward this Bill after he had opposed that
of the President of the Board of Trade, this was entirely with-
out foundation. All the arguments which he had stated in
the course of the debate went to shew, and the. Right Hon.
Baronet she Member for Tamworth had admitted it, that a
change in the present law was necessary, and the Right Hon.
Baronet had given it as his reason for voting for the second
reading of the President of the Board of Trade's Bill, that
alterations might be mad:: in Committee. Admitting the ne-
cessity of a change, therefore, there was surely no inconsis-
tency in opposing a measure pregnant with evils to children
under thirteen years of age, and bringing forward one which
was calculated to protect those under twenty-one. Indeed it
behoved him, as one of the opponents of the former Bill, to
bring forward another, because the Right Hon. Gentleman in
abandoning his measure, had given the House to understand
that he would change any injurious consequences which might
arise from enforcing the present law upon those who had
voted against him. Not wishing to incur any such responsi-
bility, and knowing that the present Act was unpalatable,
both to masters and men, he was prepared to lay upon the
table of the House a Bill which would obviate the difficulties
arising from the present law, and which, he did believe,
would be beneficial to all parties. As the House, however,
appeared to be unwilling at this period of the Session to enter
again upon the question, he felt himself compelled to bow to
their decion. He complained, however, that the friends of
the factory children had been on several occasions charged
with all the ill consequences arising from the present Act, and
even his Majesty's Government had not scrupled to lend them-
selves to the accusation; but as it was most unfounded he hoped
it would be withdrawn. If it were given up he should have
less objection to withdraw his motion. He hoped, therefore,
that if ho did this, the Government would also withdraw the
declaration that they had made, removing the responsibility of
enforcing this act from their own shoulders to those of their
opponents, on the ground that the Government, were not the
parties who originated the measure, the fact being, that the
present law was the offspring of the Government and of no
other individuals. The Government must take the responsi-
bility of the measure entirely upon themselves.
Mr. G 0 ULB URN said that in opposing the introduction
of the Bill lie could not be charged with inconsistency, as he
had actually voted with the Hon. Member on a late occasion
against the proposition of a distinguished Member of the Go-
vernment. (Mr. Thomson, wo suppose.) But as the sense
of the House was clearly opposed to the present motion, he
would suggest that it was better not to urge it.
Lord F. EGERTON said a few words to the same effect.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that as the Hon. Gentleman
behind him had alluded to the part taken by Government on
the present subject, he thought it right to state what his ( Lord
Russell's) impression was with respect to it. He certainly
had understood that the feeling of the large parties who voted
on a former occasion against a Bill brought in by his Right
Hon. Friend on this subject was this, that a sufficient case of
necessity had not been made out to call upon Parliament to
interfere with an Act which had already been passed, and to
disturb its operation whilst it was yet an experiment. After
that vote, he ( Lord John Russell) had certainly felt it to be
his duty to carry the law into effect to the best in his power.
If a new Bill were to be introduced on the subject at present,
he should utterly despair of carrying the law into operation.
Mr. BAINES was sure the best mode of securing tranquil-
lity in the manufacturing districts was to let the present law
work out its way for a time until its efficiency or inefficiency
was seen. He would therefore advise the Hon. Member to
withdraw his motion.
Mr. HINDLE Y said, that as the Noble Lord had agreed
to take the responsibility of the present law, he should con-
sent to withdraw his motion. In doing, this, however, he felt
conscious that he had been prepared to lay before the House a
measure which would relieve them from the difficulties which
would arise from the present state of the law. As to the
opinion that some Hon. Members had expressed, that the agi-
tation upon this subject out of doors would geese, he believed
the contrary would be the case. The people were determined
not to rest till they obtained an effective Ten-hours' Bill ; and
in their attempts to do this, he should be ready to assist them
by every legal and constitutional means in his power. He
hoped the number of the friends of the factory children would
so increase in that House, that such a Bill would, ere long,
be carried by a triumphant majority.
COURT OF SESSION (SCOTLAND).
The LORD ADVOCATE moved for leave to bring in a
Bill for the better regulation of the office of Auditor of Ac-
counts in the Court of Session in Scotland, and for the ap-
pointment of two Accountants-General in the said Court.
Sir W. RAE opposed the motion. The only object of the
Bill was to give 3,0001. a year to men for doing nothing.
Mr. HUME thought it would be better to suspend the Bill
until it was ascertained whether the reductions already recom-
mended by Committees of that House might not effect the
general object contemplated by the Learned Lord.
The LORD ADVOCATE and Sir W. RAE mutually explained.
After a few words from Sir G. Clerk, Mr. Wallace, Mr.
Goulburn, and Mr. Bannerman, the House divided, when there
appeared—
For the motion 93
Against it _ _ 69

Majority in its favour 24
SHERIFFS' AND BURGH COURTS (SCOTLAND).
The LORD ADVOCATE then moved for leave to bring
in a Bill to regulate the 'constitution, jurisdiction, and forms
of process of Sheriff's Court, and the civil jurisdiction of
Burgh Courts, in Scotland. He did not find it necessary
on the present occasion to enter into a discussion of the de-
tails of the Bill. ihe measure would come umler discussion
on another and more opportune occasion.
Sir W. RAE complained of this Bill being brought in at