The Sun.
London, England, 1848-08-09 00:00:00

WEDNESDAY EVENING, AUGUST 9, 1848.

Mr. COBDEN said that it must be in the recollection of 1 tions was a question of acres, and that if they told out the
the House, when his Hon. Friend the Member for Mon- number of farmers on one or two noblemen's estates in a
trose brought forward his motion for a reform in that liouSe f county, he would tell who would be returned.—(Hear,
that many of his Hon. Friends who were among the more l hear.) He recollected also that the Noble Lord at the bead
discreet reformers in that House said that it was very un- of the Government in 18:35 said, that when he was a candi-
wise to bring Members down to vote on four questions. His date for Devonshire, he found that some of the members of
Hon. Friend thought he was much more likely to succeed it his committee who had taken an active part in supporting
lie brought forward one at a time. All must recollect how him had been obliged to vote against him.—(Hear, hear.)
his Hon. Friend was censured for adopting the course which lie ( Mr. Cobden) also recollected some elections in Lance-
he did. And now what did they hear from the Noble Lord shire, where, in one election, a great number of electors came
at the head of the Government ? lie found fault with the to Ormskirk to vote for a blue candidate, while in the pre-
ballot because it was calculated to give to one-seventh of vious election they had voted for the yellow candidate,
the male adult population of this country the power of a and in the election before that for the blue candi-
Venetian oligarchy. Were his friends and himself who date. This had arisen from the circumstance that the pro-
wished to have the franchise extended to a large portion of perty had twice changed hands, and the tenantry on the
the male population to be answered by this?—(Hear, hear.) estate were marched up as oxen to the shambles.—(Hear,
The Noble Lord had recorded his vote against the eaten- hear.) He wished to see men to whom the franchise was
sion of the suffrage; how then could he consistently come entrusted possess more dignity of character, which was im-
forward and make use of such an argument?—(Hear, possible to be the case while such influence was exercised
hear.) He (Mr. Cobden) confessed that he viewed the over them. He was, therefore, anxious that for the sake of
question of the ballot with less interest than he did twelve the counties the ballot should be at once adopted. The Noble
years ago.—( Hear.) He believed at that time there was less Lord said that he did not think that the ballot would put a
corruption in the boroughs, and the county constituencie, stop to the great abuses which existed, but if these great
were less subservient. He still believed, however, that vote abuses were admitted to exist, it was an additional argument
by ballot was the best mode of suffrage for this or any other in favour of the motion of the Hon. Member for Montrose.
country.—(bear, hear.) He would vote for the measure, He was glad that the Hon. Member for Bristol had brought
because he believed that it was demanded by a very large forward the present motion, as it was an answer to the cavils
portion of the electors of the country, and also because he which had been urged against the proposition of his lion.
had never heard a valid argument against it. Certainly Friend the Member for Montrose. If the House rejected the
the Noble Lord, with his great talent and long experience. motion, it would make one more addition to the catalogue to
if he could have found valid arguments against it. would show the people of England the want of harmony which ex-
have brought them forward, but he had completely failed in isted between that House and the middle classes which it
doing so. The opposition to the question must be on its last pretended to represent, and it would do more than anything
legs, when nothing more had fallen from the Noble Lord than else, notwithstanding the statements of the Noble Lord or
what the house had just heard. The Noble Lord said that any other Prime Minister to the contrary. to show that it was
the ballot was contrary to the open and free ,constitution of essential to get rid of the block to legislation in which they
the country. It certainly might be open, but was it free ? were placed.—(Cheers.)
The franchise was open because they had not the ballot, but Mr. HENLEY rose amidst cries of " Divide." He said
with past experience could they say that it was free? The that he had heard a great many speeches of the Hon. Gen-
Noble Lord asked whether, in having secret pro- Oman which had surprised him, but he was more surprised
ceedings in a court of justice, ajudge or jury would not be at that which he had just heard than at any of his previous
less liable to obloquy or calumny than if all their speeches. The lion. Gentleman had been pleased to say
proceedings were open ? This, however, was an unfair that the Noble Lord had forgotten the principles of the con-
analogy. With respect to a jury, it was necessary, in stitution; but he (Mr. Henley) believed that the Noble
cases of conviction, in criminal cases, that it should be Lord was a much better authority on the subject than the
unanimous, but this was unnecessary where there was an Hon. Member for the West Riding. The Hon. Member
acquittal. But if the Noble Lord relied on the illustra- denied what the Noble Lord had stated as to the courts of
tion of the jury, what did he say with respect to the justice. From the principles of the Hon. Gentleman he
grand jury, which was a secret body? In Scotland, also, could well understand why he objected to go to courts of
where it was not necessary that the jury should be una- justice for an analogy. Surely the Hon. Gentleman would
nimous, there was no means of getting at the individual not say that there was no such thing asi ntimidation of wit-
opinions of the jury. The Noble Lord also said that a person nesses in Ireland. Would he also be hardy enough to say
might be exposed to obloquy for openly giving evidence in that the judges on the bench in Ireland had not been threat-
a court of justice. He (Mr. Cobden) denied this, and also ened in consequence of the course which they had felt it
the assutnptipn that the judges for their conduct in court to be their duty to take in trials in Ireland? Did the
were liable to be calumniated.—(Hear, hear.) It was noto- Hon. Member mean to say that Ireland was not a
rictus that no class of persons in this Country was so far re- part of the empire? The Honourable Member complained
moved from obloquy or charges of that kind as the judges that the Noble Lord did not adduce any powerful arguments
for their conduct in their respective courts. The Noble Lord against the ballot, but surely the weight of argument
also was not very correct in his analogy as to the votes in should come from the side of those who proposed the adop-
that House, for the votes of Members in that House were tion of the ballot. The Noble Lord had said that open vot-
nseelecwtoerrse insecnhtoothsienrge ingthe
ihiaodn.evGeernbteleemn
athneapnrdachtiiscefriinentdhsistocosuhnotwryt,haenaddivtownatosgfoesr
very different from those given b
to
Members.perfo rm by
The i
elegl
ae mt i
obne r st
hoe t that
duties
ot
of
legislation which the which the public would derive from this measure before he
large mass of the people could not directly perform them- came forward and called for such a great change in the con-
selves. If the Noble Lord reflected for a moment he would stitution of the country. The Hon. Gentleman passed very
see that the case he mentioned did not hold good; for the slightly by the continent of Europe. He (Mr. Henley) was
Members of that House were subject to periodical election, not surprised at this, for the information which the Hon.
and the electors to whom they were responsible might tell Gentleman gave the House on former occasions with respect
them, " we will not elect you again. --( FT
" e --ear, hear.) The to the continent must make him rather chary as to giving
case was very different front the electors of the country. To euesh positive opinions again. The Hon. Member had told
whom were the electors of this country responsible for the the House that the result of his experience on the continent
votes which they gave? Were they responsible to the non- was, that there was no disposition for change, or the slightest
electors? Would any one tell him so? If it were said that chance of revolution.
they were responsible to the non-electors, then it must be Mr. COBDEN declared that he had said nothing of the
assumed that they were competent to judge the electors. kind.
If that were so, why not then give them votes?—(hear, Mr. HENLEY observei that the Hon. Member certainly
hear, and loud cheers.) It came out in the course of the said so with regard to France. He, however, dealt very
Noble Lord's speech to whom he considered they were tenderly and cautiously with the continent. The Hon.
responsible, namely, to the Marquis of Exeter and others Member said that in every state almost there was voting by
who held the nominations of Members for boroughs.-- ballot, but he did not attempt to show that any possible
(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord seemed to have forgotten benefit had resulted from it. The Hon. Member also said
the theory of the constitution which he had lauded so much. that the ballot existed in Russia. No doubt the Hon.
The people of this country were to make the laws by which Member looked with great comolacency at what took place
they were governed, and were to tax themselves. The an- in Russia. He could understand this admiration of Russia,
cient doctrine was, that every housekeeper should have the for if the Hon. Member's party were in power, there would
right of voting at the election of Members. The origin of be as much tyranny here as in that empire. The Hon.
the custom was, that the right should be bestowed on the Gentleman had not shown any advantage which America
heads of families, but afterwards householders alone were possessed from the ballot, and when the Hon. Gentleman
thought to have the power of nominating the Members of specially took America as his battle ground, he ought
that House. As the Noble Lord was so fond of lauding the not to have shrunk from the task of proving
theory of the constitution, why was he so anxious to depart the benefits which he contended that the bal-
from it ? The Noble Lord did not seem to him to make much lot bad showered upon it. The Honourable Gentleman said
of a case against the ballot. The' Noble Lord did not say that there was no corruption in America—the Noble Lord
that aristocratic institutions could not be maintained if the said that there was a great deal. The country must decide
ballot were adopted, but he said it was only bearable in a between them; but, at all events, it was known that with
' democracy. The drift of his argument was, that they every political change in the United States there was a great
could not maintain the institutions of the country chattering and change of offices and situations of all sorts, a
with the ballot. Towards the end of his speech, however, circumstance which would go to influence votes just as well
he said that the adoption of the ballot would make very as hard dollars. He contended that they ought not to at-
little change on the people, for that manly feeling tempt to introduce a great change like the ballot, without
would still exist which would induce them to avow as to showing that corresponding public benefit would be the re-
which way they voted; and he said that the late Lord suit. The Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cobden) said that it was
Spencer on this ground, and also, as the people wished for for the counties, not the boroughs, he wanted the ballot.
ti, said he would not make much objection to it. Where, Now, it was very natural, but at the same time it was very
then, was the Noble Lord's objection to it? The Noble Lord barefaced, for the Hon. Gentleman to attack county consti-
said that the disadvantages of the ballot were not merely tuencies considering the open way in which a public society,
confined to itself, for if it was carried, the advocates of it, of which he was one of the founders, had gone about menu-
•
beteg disappointed at its success, would require an extension factoring faggot votes for a political purpose. He presumed
of the suffrage. If the people exercised the franchise pretty that the creators of these votes kept a pretty tight hold on
nearly as they did at present, wLere was the danger to the those who held them.—(Hear, hear, and cries of " Divide,
institutions of the country to adopt the ballot? The Noble divide.") The fionoarable Gentleman, in inveighing against
Lord hadalladed to what he (Mr. Cobden) had said on a county Members and county constituents, had made a
former occasion with respect to clubs, but he then mentioned very unfair attack on a body of men of whose habits he could
many other instances in which the ballot was resorted to, know but very little.—(Divide, divide.) He (Mr. Henley)
such, for instance, as the East India Company. The Noble held that men who would bribe would find the means of as-
Lord knew that the directors of the East India Company, certaining how votes were given, even under cover of the
who governed 100,000.000 of people, were elected by the pro- ballot ,and that the introduction of that system would increase
prietors of East India Stock by vote by ballot. The mode in corruption while it diminished the means of investigating
which it was done was that every proprietor, whether gen- into and punishing elect oral abuses.
tleman or lady, had a card presented to each, with the list Mr. MUNTZ characterised the speech of the Noble Lord
of the names of the candidates printed on it, and they at the head of the Government as sophistical and elusive of
scratched the names of thoseparties out for whom they did the question at issue. In opposition to the Hon. Gentleman
not intend to vote. Now, if they allowed the ballot at the who had just sat down, he believed that the ballot would
East India House, for the election of those who governed be made to act secretly. and that a great deal of peace
100,000,000, surely there could be no great strength in the and comfort and confidence to all classes would result
argument of the Noble Lord as to clubs? lie believed the from its introduction. Since 1800 the ballot had worked
seine system of voting was also in use at the Bank of Eng- admirably in the Netherlands, to the satisfaction indeed
land. 'lt appeared, then, that in many of the main trans- of all classes and its interests. Why, then, could it not
actions of life the ballot was adopted, to prevent the incon- be as well managed here? Hon. Gentleman talked about
venience which arose from open voting. The Noble Lord it being an un-English system. Why, he was as English
also alluded to foreign countries. He (Mr. Cobden) believed in habits and feelings as any man, but would he like
the ballot was used in all countries on the Continent. It his account-books and records ef private affairs to
was used in France, Spain, and Portugal, and in every vii- be exposed openly in the streets? No, it was
lags in Russia at the election of the head men of it, and this neither wise, just, or expedient to tell the whole truth at all
he had seen himself. He did not, however, wish to look to times, and if any lion. Member did so he was unworthy of
those countries for any analogy with this, where the English the confidence of those who sent him there.—(Hear, hear.)
people had been so long accustomed to self-government. If, Then, again, he heard of the spirit of the constitution.
however, they must go abroad for a parallel, he eveuld refer What was the constitution, but the laws actually existing
them to a people as well able as the people of this country to at the time being? Why, every time they met here they
govern themselves. He would go to the United States of altered that constitution.—(Hear, hear.) He protested
America. He said nothing respecting a republican Govern- against the spirit of the constitution being made a peg
meat, nor was he going to state that he preferred it to our whereon to hang objections to all reforms.—(Hear. hear.)
own form of Government. If they looked to Spain and Por- This was no party question, it had nothing to do with
tugal, the people of this country were fifty years in advance party—or, at all events, both parties were equally interested
of the inhabitants of those countries as respected self-govern- in it. In his own borough one-seventh of the constituency
merit. If, however, they regarded the condition of the never voted at all, because they were afraid of their pecu-
people of many parts of-the United States where there was niary interests suffering from the exercise of their political
no hierarchy, no aristocracy, and no sovereign, but a simple privileges. The question was, then, whether under such a
democratic race, descended from a plebeian race of English- system the people were jastly dealt with—whether they
men, they would find that never in the history of the world was could exercise their electoral rights without detriment to
there an instance of a people governing themselves with such their worldly prospects. He contended that they could
that very bare fact was, in his • •
moral, intellectual, and social results as was the case with not, and
the people of the New England States of America.—( Ilea ) reason h
America.—(Hear.) for the introduction of vote by ballot. Holding
He did not include all the American States, but any one who these opinions, e would cordially support the motion before
had ever been in America would, he felt assured, agree with the House.— (Cheers.)
him in stating that the descendants of a plebeian race of Eng- Mr. P. WOOD differed entirely from the Hon. Member
lishmen in New England had succeeded in them- who had designated the present n
governing
it as a fantastical" motion.
He thought one of the
selves better than any people on the face of the earth.— most important motions of the pre-
the inhae sent session—the mast important ( Hear.) The people of England were germane to after that lately brought
;,ward by the Hon
bitants of those states, and were as capable of being intrusted Member for Montrose.—(Hear.) The
oble Lord at the .
with self-government; as any race on the face of the earth. d of the Government talked of the
the ballot as the introduction
-(hear.) He deprecated all cases of comparison with of a new principle of secret voting.
states of America, except with respect to the northern states,in lt was no doubt new—but what then ? Before the Reform
in which there was no slavery. Then how did the ballot Bill,
operate in those countries? The Noble Lord said it did not whether voting was secret or open; but after the Reform Bill
succeed, but he said nothing in way of explanation to sho:dw. had passed the whole aspect of the question underwent a
that this was the case.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord change,change, and the time had now come when they could not
had certainly said that in that country some men could shut their eyes to the fact that the question was, whether
influence thirty or forty thousand electors. The they could or could not trust the people.—(Hear, hear.)
Noble Lord did not say how, but they had no Marquis It was the middle classes—the shopkeepers of the various
of Exeter there to influence them after his fashion. But he towns—whose opinions it was desirable to have, andthey
(Mr.
(Mr. Cobden) would go further, and say—in that country were the very people whose ni op i • ons were never ascer-
some men influenced hundreds of thousands of electors.— tained. The statieticeof
the Westminster elections fully
(Hear, hear.) Such men as Clay and Webster indeed would explained that fact. He was shocked to hear the Noble
of secret
influence not only hundreds of thousands, but millions of Lord speak of the evil influences
voting, and of
electors.—(Hear, hear.) But how was that influence ob- trusting the exercise
of the franchise to the caprice of
tained! It was from their high moral and intellectual quali- those who voted •
in secret. Were these electors persons
ties they had obtained their influence.—( g public Hear, hear.) The capable of ex opinion, or were they not? If
Noble Lord said that corruption existed in North America. they were, then they
He (Mr. Cobden) denied that this was the case.—(Bear.) forth as a body of were the men who ought to be called
additional electors. Jurors were not sub-
tle would give the strongest proof that corruption could not jest to the influences to which electors were subjected. In-
exist in the United States. Universal suffrage existed in all fluence
wasb
the free states. The President had only 5,0001. a year, and intention of rought to bear on the electors, which it was the
the Reform Bill to exclude •and to adopt the
,
all the Government functionaries were paid on a small scale. means of
He did not believe that in such a country, where the votes putting a stop to this influence would be one mode
lie
of satisfy • ying the people that the House was really in earnest
were taken at very short periods, and where the common on the
labourer earned five shillings a day, and where an acre of subjectofbribery. But was there not the greater
land could be purchased for six or seven shillings. that cor- question of intimidation, which affected a large and nume-
ro us class of tenantry. lie held in his hand the report of
rupt practices • could be carried on. He did not believe that the Committee which had sat with regard to the borough of
.., -
in a country where the expenditure of the Government was Stafford. Although the Committee stated that none of the
on so limited a scale, and where fortunes were so much on an
facts relating to tt e Marquis of Exeter's interference at
equality, that it was possible foy any, body of men to the time ofthe had been proved, the
purchase
purchase the votes of their fellow-citizens.--(Hear.) Then
ejectment of tenants in 1830 and 1847, yet he was glad to
with regard to the ballot. Did the Americans like the ballot find that the Committee had come to the conclusion
themselves? Did they ever hear of any one of the that d Unit •
United looking at the fact of one-third of the consta-
States abandoning the ballot, or could they state an instance tuency •
been mad
of any serious prousition ever havingh. )e to change being tenants of the M • arquis, and to the
discharges served on
fourteen tenants in 1830, and
the mode of voting there? --(Hear, ear. No,
but there
ballot to sixteen in 1847, undue influence had been made to
had been a gradual extension of the
_. the States in operate on the minds of a portion of the constitu-
which it had not hitherto been adopted, lie believed, al- envy, and they
though he could not speak positively OR
the subject, that v had been placed under bias and restraint in
the exercise of the elective franchise. Could any one say
a
there was not a state which was not slave
state in which _
ballot—(Hear, h 'eh that this was not influence from which the ballot would pro-
they had not adopted vote by. 9 ear.) But tect them? The House was asked what would be the result
regard to our
this was a practical question with
The Noble Lord did not grapple with the main case, but had
been brought same as it was without it. If the result would be the same
alluded to circumstances which had
as before the with honest means on the one hand, and dishonest means on
House by the Hon. Member for Bristol,the showingprevention the neces- the other, then why not obtain the result by honest means?
sity for protection to the voter and
tion ; but he was sure that there was hardly a Member in of the Government. What was the case on the 10th of
that House who could not cite analogous cases._
(Hear, April ? Did not the whole class of voters and non-voters
hear.) The Hon. Member for Carlisle had defended open come forward in a mass to rally round the cause of order?
voting, but was there ever anything
,hing so disgraceful as what Look at the result of the ballot in the last election for France.
occurred at the last election for that place, as described in the Was the present National Assembly of France one which
d who r •
blue book? There was a Mr. Head, who . resided in the was destructive of all order, or one which was favourable to
neighbourhood, and who appeared - the restoration of order? Every one felt that the Assembly
rupter.—(A laugh.) Ile wrote acheque
and for
1,0001., which was favourable to the restoration of order, and yet that As-
he gave Ito his clerk to get discounted, the amount he sembly had been elected by the ballot and by universal
ordered to be expended at the election.a. The result was suffrage. It was no use to attempt to govern a country
that for several days the town was in beastly state of in- where there was liberty of speech by any other influence than
with
toxication, and still this Mr. Head,. ti
of oominable hypo- the direct influence of persuading that you were in the right,
crier, was engaged in the distribution
„ temperance tracts, and that you were honest and sincere, and intended the wet-
-(Laughter, and cries of ,
" Hear, hear.) The lion. Mem- fare of the people. Let the Noble Lord only throw himself
ber for Stafford also, who was for open voting, came forward on the whole people of England in the same gallant manner
with the case of his own borough. What was the state of in which he threw himself on the constituency of London—
the purity of the elections thought had let hint deal frankly with them, and he would find the ex-
been well known since the time of (Hear, hear.) periment most satisfactory, and that all persons were anxious
the last*—
The Hon. Gentleman said that ato _
l election he set for good government.
aside all political questions, and told thewoulcectors that it' lie Mr. NAPIER—The Hon. Member for the city of Oxford
was sent by them to Parliamenni have none of the had stated that the people of England were a frank, manly,
but that
chimeras Of the ballot or free trace, but
the country in a peculiar way ; and the Hon. Member added milted they were so, and it was because they possessed those
that they returned him, although his_
the iopinionsi were very dif- qualities that he deemed them worthy of exercising the
ferent from theirs.—(Laughter.) If on. Member's eon- franchise in a manly, open, and independent manner.
stituents had returned him on the ground. that he should act. , (Hear. hear.) It was under the present system of voting
very differently from all other Members in the House, he cue that their constitution had grown up—a constitution which
tainly had completely fulfilled his pledge.—(Great laughter.) partook of the character of the people; but Hon. Members
It was notorious, however, that that borough had never been on the other side of the House would now introduce into it
fortunate enough to induce any man to contest it a second an entirely new principle—a principle at variance with its
time in consequence of the expenditure, but the spirit, and epposed to the genius of the British nation.
Honourable Member, perhaps, might go again to Staflord, Allusion had been made to America, but he too had heard
and induce them to return him a second time. He something of the working of the ballot in that country. The
was in favour of the ballot, however, not so much Hon. Gentleman then read an extract from the observations
for the sake of the towns as for the counties. lie believed if of an American, in which he said that the state of Virginia
the electors of the counties had the ballot, that some of the had refused to admit the ballot.
best Members that could be sent would be returned by them Mr. COBDEN—But Virginia is a slave state.—(Hear. )..
to that House. Would any one tell him that the electors in Mr. NAPIER observed that upon a solemn review of its
many counties were free to choose whom they pleased, or working the ballot had been abolished in Virginia in 1830,
whether it was not notorious that they were influenced in and open voting substituted.
of slavery—Olean)
their votes ?—(Hear. hear.) In some counties, where there Mr. MACGREGOR—Yes, on account
were 5,000 or 6,000 voters, they might depend upon it that Mr. NAPIER wished to see open, manly voting_ on all oc-
the candidates, or rather Members, would be selected by five casions, so that public opinion might be brought tobear upon
or six noblemen sitting at their firesides. Lord Stanley, who men having a public duty to discharge—(Hear)—that
h d
did not conceal his opinions, openly stated that county elec- .. , genial influence under which all our institutions a grown

up and prospered. The main argument in favour of the
ballot was that the shopkeeper or persons in an humble state
of life possessing the franchise might be injured by its free
exercise, but he wanted to know if it was a principle in
our constitution (as this argument seemed to assume) that no
man should be placed in a position by which the exercise
of his public duty would be attended with private inconveni-
ence ?—(Hear, hear.) He had not heard any argument
advanced to-night to induce him to change his former
opinion upon this question, and still believed that vote by
ballot WAS inconsistent with the spirit of the British constitu-
tion.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. VILLIERS agreed that the people of England were
a frank, open, and independent people, and that was the
reason why they had never submitted to an abuse when
they had discovered it to exist, and that was why they had
come before the House on the present occasion; they saw
that men were bribed and intimidated, and they would bear
it no longer. The Hun. and Learned Member for Dublin
had referred to an argument of the Hon. Member for the
West Riding, and had stated what was the practice in the
United States, but the Hon. Member for the 'West Riding
had pointed to particular states in America where there were
no slaves, the New England States, where was our own race
and our own institutions; they had insisted on the protection
to voting, and there had been no case in which that system
had been abolished. The answer which the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman had adduced referred to what had taken place
in the slave states, and the lion. and Learned Gentleman
made out that where there was anything bad and iniquitous
to defend, there men insisted upon open voting.—(Hear.)
Ile thought the speech of his Hon. Friend the Member for
Oxford, was quite conclusive upon this subject. Nobody
denied that by the ballot bribery and intimidation would be
prevented. They were at that moment legislating to prevent
those evils, for a Bill to prevent corrupt practices was before
the House. The ballot was a far more efficacious mode of
preventing those evils. The only argument against the
ballot was, that there might be cases in which there would
be an approximation to the present system. It was ad-
mitted that the knowledge of how a man voted was the
root of all existing evils. As the Hon. Member for
Oxford had said, those who opposed the ballot were
apprehensive that the electors were not trustworthy. He
(Mr. Villiers) did not mean to say it was not an advantage
to have persons for representatives who possessed rank,
station, and property. So far as he knew, safety was felt
in persons of that sort being in the Legislature, as there
was a kind of conservative spirit amongst them. But
would the ballot exclude such !persons ? No. The Hon.
Member for Bristol had quoted the opinion of Mr. Grote to
show that men of property would be the persons selected
under the ballot. But then something else besides property
would be required. The representative must have character
and reputation.—(Cheers.) Now he could not see the mis-
chief of that. Under the present system any man who hap-
pened to possess the influence of property might, without
reference to character or ability, become a member of the
Legislature. There was a preference for property in this
country, as there ever must be in a commercial and indus-
trious nation like this; but let an elector have the free ex-
ercise of his opinions secured to him by the ballot, and then
fortune and birth would be useless without character and
credit.—(Cheers.) Of course, men would prefer a good man
to a bad one, but at present they had no choice. He be-
lieved that at present any man who had a fortune might feel
certain of obtaining a seat in that House. Establish the
ballot, and this would not be the case. He believed with
his Hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, that there was no
reason to fear the sort of men who would be sent to the
Legislature under the ballot. Another advantage that
would be obtained by the establishment of the ballot would
be, that they would give the wealthy classes the greatest
possible interest in the education of the people.—(Cheers.)
If they felt alarmed on account of the prospect of ignorant
proceedings in the election of Members for the Legislature,
they must feel deeply interested in the question of educating
the people. He thought they required some stimulus of
that kind.—(Cheers.) The people were still much neglected,
and a very large portion of them were in a very degraded
state. There was something wanting to excite the wealthy
classes to extend to the people the advantages of know-
ledge, and he knew of nothing more calculated to produce
that result than to make the wealthy classes feel danger it
they did net do it.—(Hear hear.) Everything that had
been done with respect to elections this session was calcu-
lated to lower that House in the estimation of the people,
and the House was now about to separate without having
taken any steps to prevent the recurrence of those disgrace-
ful events which had been so frequently this year disclosed
by Committees of that House.—(Hear, hear.) They could
not under the present system amend the mode of conducting
elections, and therefore they ought to devise some other sys-
tem. He knew that it was an argument urged in private
more than in public, that under any other system people of
property would get into the House. The men of property,
it was contended, would always constitute the majority. But
how, he would ask, did they now get into that House?
Everybody knew that at present 3,0001. or 4,000/. were
required to get into Parliament. And how was that money
spent? Why, in demoralising the constituency, and in
tempting the people to crime and vice. Under the present
system they were only adding to that vice which they
expressedthemselves as wishing to see overcome. The 3,0001.
was spent in corrupting whole families, and everybody
must have observed that in those places where the money
was so spent there were more assize cases than anywhere
else. This was a great moral question. It was a question
of education, and he believed that no sufficient argument
had been shown against the !proposition of his Hon. Friend
the Member for Bristol, namely, that of taking votes by
ballot. He would not say that that mode was perfect or
without some evils, but comparing it with the present sys-
tem, it was infinitely superior, and ought therefore to obtain
their support.—(Cheers.)
Mr. H. BERKELEY replied. The Noble Lord objected
to his having proposed a resolution instead of a Bill. But
it the House should agree to the resolution, a Bill would
very soon follow. As America had frequently been alluded
to, he would state that he had resided six years there, and
had closely observed the working of the American system.
and he never heard of anything like intimidation, or any-
thing like a bribe in that country.
The House then divided, when there appeared,—
For the resolution
Against it . .
Majority in favour of the ballot
The result was received with considerable cheering.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL obtained leave to bring in
a Bill to confirm the incorporation of certain boroughs. The
Bill was subsequently brought in and read a first time.
On the motion of Mr. BOLTVEINE, a Bill was brought in
and read a first time, to explain an Act made in the Ist year
of King William and Mary, for exempting their Majesty's
Protestant subjects, dissenting from the church of England,
from the penalties of certain laws.
Mr. RAPHAEL obtainei leave to bring in a Bill to exempt
from the legacy duties all charitable bequests, not to private
ndividuals, but to public bodies.
The House adjourned at Five Minutes past Twelve.