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

THE SUN, LONDON, FRU)" FEBRUARY 16, 183 g.

revolution, of 1830, adopted the Ballot: Therb was not it
single instance in which that was not the case. And yet the
House had had been told that the Ballot did not work well ; they
had been told so, notwithstanding this general acknowledgment
in its favour. They had the testimony in its behalf'
nye gI the
fAencle of the people. he. ' • 4
wiener-- • ' _•- e" at. t111..` neinlies of the people. F'or
one enemies of the people attempted to violate their
privileges they attacked the Ballot. One portion of the ordi-
nances which that eminent statesman Charles X. hart
been advised to issue was directed Against the Ballot. He
(Mr. Buller) protested therefore, against any inference
being drawn against the Ballot from the conduct of the
Liberal portion of America. Switzerland, or France, He
would now say a few words on the morality of the question.
Ile would not stay to ask how the Ballot was found to be in-
consistent with the condition of the moral and enlightened
cantons. or SWitierland, With the moral and enlightened mo-
earelity or ranee—(Ar laugh)—or with the moral and en-
' lightened republic of America. In all those countries moral
and religious freedom was preserved, notwithstanding the syss
tern which its opponents declared must demoralize any
country into which it was introduced. He would grant that
the Ballot would give voters the power to accept bribes from
both sides in an election contest. What was the inference he
drew from that circumstance ? That by establishing the Ballot
they would take away from any man an interest in bribing a
voter. That was not the only case in which our laws and usages
operated in this indirect manner beneficially. In order to
prevent minors from being cheated by tradesmen, minors
were allowed the power of cheating tradesmen.—( A laugh.)
Why were they allowed this power ? For the plain reason that
it rendered tradesmen loath to give credit to persons who were
permitted by law to cheat them with impunity. Candidates
would not bribe voters who could cheat them with impunity.
Ile was afraid he had already trespassed too far upon the pa-
tience of the House, but he hoped he might be alluded to
make a few remarks upon the speech of the Noble Lord (Lord
John Russell), who, he must say, had been as little guilty
of novelty as any body who had addressed the House upon the
occasion. It was not with the arguments which the Noble
Lord advanced against the efficacy and morality of the Ballot
that he intended to deal, but with the argument which, with-
out a shadow of reason, he endeavoured to fasten upon all
tile supporters of the motion of the Honourable Member for
London (Mr. Grote) and by which be attempted to make
out that the Ballot would be employed as the first and pri-
mary instrument towards the achievement of very wild schemes
of extensive and unlimited encroachments upon the
Constitution. To say the least of it, he thought that the
' Noble Lord was most unjust, when he advanced such an ar-
gument against the supporters of the motion. The proposi-
tion for the adoption of the Ballot was not brought forward
with the view of making it the instrument for effecting future
and more extensive changes. He (Mr. Bulwer) could not
conceive how it was to operate as an instrument of change.—
(Laughter.) The proposition for the Ballot was introduced
for the purpose of consolidating political power in the
hands of those who now possessed it.—(Cheering, and
laughter.) The Reform Bill gave the right of voting to a
large class of persons ; the supporters of the Ballot wished to
enable that large class of persons to exercise their right of
voting unchecked and uncontrolled—( Hear, hear, and cries
of " Divide")—unchecked and uncontrolled as much by the
non-elector below them, as by the wealthy and influential
above them.—( Hear.) The Noble Lord ( Lord J. Russell)
in the course of his address, had raked up all the speeches
which had been made at various meetings at various places in
consequence of the unfortunate speech made by him ( Lord
John Russell) at the commencement of the present Session
of Parliament. The Noble Lord had alluded particularly
to the speeches made by the Honourable Member for South-
wark (Mr. D. W. Harvey), and by another Member of the
House, in one of which he said the Ballot was recommended,
because it could not fail of becoming the instrument for
effecting an extension of the Suffrage, and in the other be-
cause it would lead to a shortening of the duration of Par-
liaments. Now, the real effect of the Ballot would be to
make the 101. householder perfectly independent in the
exercise of his vote ; and that, he supposed, was what the
opponents of the Ballot did not wish.—( Cries of " Oh, oh,"
and " Divide, divide.") The Right Honourable Baronet
(' Sir Robert Peel) was wrong in saying that he had in-
troduced no novelty into the discussion of this question.
The Right Honourable Baronet was too modest—(Hear,
and cries of " Divide.") The Right Honourable Baronet had
been guilty of the great novelty of being too frank.—( Cries
of " Divide.) ( Here the Honourable Gentleman alluded to
some portion of the argument advanced by Sir Robert Peel,
but the frequent interruptions of the House rendered him in-
audible in the gallery.) The argument advanced by the Right
Honourable Baronet was an argument against representative
government altogether, and that was what the opposition
to the Ballot really meant.—(General cries of " Divide.")
The Ballot was opposed because it would substitute repre-
sentation in the place of nomination.--( Cheers.) That
was the avowed ground upon which the Ballot was opposed.
—(oh 0 Every argument upon which the opposition
rested distinctly avowed it.—(" Divide.") By the Reform
Act the people obtained the suffrage ; but matters had since
been so managed as to render the effect of that measure in a
great begree null ; and now that the true and legitimate
objects of the Act had been defeated, the Honourable Gen-
tlemen opposite came forward and declared themselves its
staunch supporter? Why? Because it kept the voter in
thrall—because it prevented independent excereise of the
Franchise.—(oll.) He had always observed that nothing so
much excited a noisy and obstreperous cry of Oh I"
from the Opposition benches as a plain telling of the
truth.—(Cries of " Oh," and " Divide.") The fact was
that since the Honourable Gentlemen opposite had be-
come practical Reformers, they had forgotten all their an-
, cient principles of conduct, and nothing was now so distaste-
ful to them as to be reminded of their former sayings and
doings.—( Oh, divide.) The Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell)
thought that the rote ought to be free; but, somewhat
oscillating between Aristocracy and Democracy, he added
that he thought it ought to be checked by responsibility—to
whom he (Mr. C. Buller) could not make out, whether to
the Aristocracy or to the Democracy. He (Mr. C. Buller)
stood between the two, and said that the voters to whom
the Reform Act gave the franchise were the fit deposi-
taries of political power, and that means ought to be given
to them of exercising their franchise with freedom and
security. But he maintained that the legal gift of the fran-
chise had been nullified by the deficiency which existed in
the mode of voting. —( Cries of " Divide I") He asked for no
increase of the franchise. He did not agree with the Hon.
Gentlemen opposite, who, in spite of their professed respect
for the Reform Act, endeavoured last Session, when they
voted for the proposition of Sir James Graham, to curtail
the franchise by depriving a large class of electors of the right
to vote. He did not agree with those who wished to dis-
franchise the freemen or the 501. leaseholders. He wished
to disfranchise no man. Ho would leave the franchise as it
now stood, neither curtailing it nor extending it. That was
his wish at present; but he did not mean to say that hereafter•
an extension of the suffrage might not be necessary.—( Loud
hear.)
cheers from the Opposition.) Ile was not presumptuous
enough to lay down laws to bind posterity.—(Bear,
He did not think that the franchise prescribed by
the Reform Act was a franchise that should last for ever.--
( Hear, hear.) But he had no intention to change it ; ho
merely wished it to be unfettered.—( Hear, hear.) For that
purpose he supported the Ballot.—( Oh, and cries of " Di-
vide.") Ile would not trespass two minutes further. It was
not to the principle,
but to the defective machinery of the Re-
form Act, that he and those who thought with him upon the
subject of the Ballot, attributed the evils of which they corn-
" The Reform Act" he continued, " is a good
Act if you would carry it into effective operation. It is gcod
in as foafr
intelligence
tietnei
go nefueeres theaud legal
rtitle tot h thee e franchisecountry.
on the
m
All we
call on you to do is to adopt y an alteration in the mechanism
of voting, that shall insure to that class the actual possession
of the privilege which the law has given it. We seek not ad-
mission for any new principle. The independence of the voter
is a principle as ancient as Parliament itself. Many laws have
been passed to guard it ; a hundred resolutions of this House
have proclaimed its importance and its sanctity, and still the
independence of the voter is not reserved. What I call
upon you to do is to vindicate your own laws. Do not allow
the insolence or the frauds of wealth to trample on the funda-
mental principles of your Constitution, but by
.the simple
machinery of a box and a card protect rights which yoU pro-
fess to revere—rights svhich a mighty nation cherished and
oofppOsspitiiovnidbeo.; tishe
will have respected."—(Cheers.)
Right HonourablmeNooßtbioalrenonLiei
Mr. GROTE rose to reply amidst loud and general cries
opposite ; he hoped he might
the Rig
three remarks upon what had faatibdide(enSbieLre
or ( or . •
to Russell)
eYumes
isa)tekhl leev
v)
hdatewn:doi isi ecoaodirtf
of " Divide.) With all the ability them oily.—( Cries
of which they had em-
ployed upon the occasion they
had not done what it was in-
cumbent upon them to do—they had
not reQied to
his objections, nor to the corn pl 'nt
of the voters of England, who were's and o ections
the principal 'Attica In-
terested in the discussion. They had neither of them denied
the existence and reality of intimidation • they had not pre-
tended to provide any other remedy for intimidation' than that
which he ( Mr. Grote) proposed, unless, indeed, he were to be
called upon to adopt as a remedy that sort of i
to the landlords which the Noble Lord oohrttnpoilent lecture
ussell) the
Member for Stroud had not been ashamed to
evening, although ho had used it at his electionuse
fora Devon-
shire that
shire in 1832, and although subsequent experience haven-
convinced him how utterly useless, how wholly null it
( Cries of " Divide.") He repeated, that to the ws:complaints
and objections of the voters of England no solid had
been returned, either by the Noble Lord or the
RighttnswerH
Baronet. Instead of returning a solid answer boand.
been done ? Why, they ascribed to the Ballot a what
tendency—
which in no reasonable view the Ballot could be held to
possess—to stifle free discussion. He (Mr. Grote) maintained
that the Ballot would at once open to the constituene ofEng-
land a greater freedom of discussion, a greater freedomY
f
speech than they had ever yet possessed. Ho maintainede
further that it would encourage and strengthen all those mo-
ral influences which the Noble Lord and his Right Honour-
able Ally contended it would depress and destroy The Right
Honourable Baronet had said much about the impossibility,f
maintaining secrecy. But, surely, it could not ha-p
d
the Right Honourable Baronet that, if he wished toveseeseae
whe-
ther the plan which he (Mr. Grote) proposed would bee effec-
tual or not, he ought to allow him (Mr. Grote) to • oduece
his Bill, If the provisions of the Bill did not satisfy the
permitted
frontdomb elr tt
Right Hon. Baronet that a complete secrecy could
bea y
secu
then lie might oppose it; his opposition now was
premature.red
If he (Mr. Grote) were one of those who felt eager
for the
permanence and popularity of the Government ofwhich the
Noble Lord was the leader, he should express his
very great r
e y
regret at the language which he had used that night ard
the opposition which he had given to the question. Little did
the Noble Lord know the effect which would be
produced in
~
the country by the words he had uttered that eventeg..—.