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

Til E. SUN, LONDON,

". -

lag contests to wring and extort from them their promises
in his favor; and when he had at 1 ngth screwed them into
returning him by means of these abominable appliances, the
candidate would turn round and coolly tell his constituency,
those bought and intimidated unfortunate,, that he was
the most honoured man in the woad. iii firing elected by
their free and unbiassed suffrages.—(Laughter) Then, hav-
ing been thus returned to that House, whenever such a
gustation as the ballot was brought forward, ho ( Mr.
Berkeley) had always observed that such candidates were
ever foremost to enact the manly British lion, and indig•
=may protested that they could not support the ballot—it
was against their conscience to do so—they were virtuously
shocked at the bare idea of the lying and deceit to which
they believed it would inevitably lead.—(Latighter.) Well,
then, this was the system to which the Right Hon. Gentle-
man the Member for Northampton would adhere, because he
Was so fond of the truth and such a hearty hater of deceit,
and because he could not bear that they should institute
such a state of things as might be productive of lying, as he
called it. Then having looked at his system, he ( Mr.
Berkeley) would now turn to examine the system he assailed,
and for this purpose he must be allowed again to quote from
Mr. Grote.—[The Honourable Gentleman here read an ex-
tract to the effect that the ballot would merely empower
the voter to vote without being observed by a witness, and
would only enable him either to perform or break his pro-
mise without being found out if he were so disposed ; it held
out no inducement or reward for violating his promise.]—
And certainly the same thing might be said with reference
to every solitary or private act of every man's life. But why
were Hon. Gentlemen so afraid that the voter would break his
promise the moment he could do so with impunity? Why, it
Was but too well known that the promise given by the voter
was in thousands of cases extorted compulsorily, and not
the consent of his free will, or the dictate of his honest con-
*fiction ; and would not be made except to one who took an
ungenerous advantage of him, and who possessed the power
of inflicting a penalty incase of refusal. Compulsory promises
might be broken, but those which were voluntarily given
would be faithfully kept if the vote could be secretly recorded.
He would cite an instance that fell under his own notice in
support of this view. It occurred at the Bristol election
in 1841, which was severely contested. He (Mr. Berkeley)
canvassed a populous parish with several very experienced
canvassers, and they had taken the greatest possible care
Slot ta put down anything doubtful among the list of pro-
mises, and always to weigh well the character of the party
promising in the first instance. Having quitted the ground
with his party. the opposite party then came upon it. They
were both upon the best terms with each other : no acrimo-
• nious or bitter feeling existed on either side. His opponents
asked him (Mr. Berkeley) what had been his success, and
he told them how many more he computed he would poll
in that parish than he had done at the previous election.
Well, the answer they made him (Mr. Berkeley) was very
ominous—it was, " You think so, do you ? and you have
that number of promises.—(This was about six o'clock in
the evening.) Before four o'clock to-morrow we will change
100 of your promises." Well, after the election, he (Mr.
Berkeley) was informed by his friends that sixty of the
Promises which had been voluntarily made to him had
been changed, it being estimated that 40 of the men were
intimidated, and twenty bought. Did not such a case es this
call loudly for the ballot? To whom would it be best that
the lie should be told? To the man who came forward in
a fair and open manner, and as a candidate sought only free
and voluntary promises, or to the base suborner of conscience,
who came with his bribes and intimidation? He put this
forward to the House as one of the strongest instances that
could be adduced to prove the harmlessness of the ballot,
. and the iniquity that prevailed under the existing system of
voting. He had abstained from going into the question of
the ballot as it was affected by the practice that obtained in
the nations of antiquity, and particularly among the Romans
and Athenians; but as there had been so much talk about
the immorality of the ballot, he would remind Hon. Gentle-
men, and particularly, the Right Hon. Baronet the Member
for the University of Oxford, that they had a strong recom-
mendation of the ballot in the circumstance of its having
been adopted by the highest authority that could possibly be
adduced for any earthly institution.l The very first Christian
election that ever took place was transacted by ballot.—
. (Hear, bear.) And it was an election under the most
solemn circumstances. The House would remember that
between the death of Christ and his ascension, that there
occurred a vacancy among the Apostles, throug the self-
immolation of Judas Iscariot, and 120 of the disciples of
Christ assembled together to elect Judas's successor. There
-were two candidates, Matthias and Barsebas. The votes
were taken by ballot, and Matthias was elected by a, majo-
rity. Now he (Mr. Berkeley) would not pretend to say that
the election took place in this form by Divine command—far
from it; but he thought he would be borne out in saying
that it took place with the warrant and under the seal
of inspiration.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Berkeley) feared
that he must look for the opposition of the Noble Lord the
• Member for London to this motion ; but he trusted that as
this had been hitherto left an open question by the Govern-
• anent. that it would be left so also on the present occasion.
And he would. pray the Noble Lord, who so strongly advo-
cated public education, to reflect that education was always
most dangerous wherever there existed discontent, and es-
pecially wherever there were real grievances to be redressed.
—(Hear.) It seemed to him (Mr. Berkeley) that the im-
provement of the social and political condition of man ought
to go hand in hand, for if they attended to the former
and not also to the latter, they would only make men more
acutely feel the degradation into which they might be
plunged. For himseif he (Mr. Berkeley) had the highest
respect for the Noble Lord, and perfectly concurred with him
that reforms in this country, for the safety of the constitu-
tion, should be carried out gradually and with steady pro-
gress ; and he felt deep gratitude tp the Noble Lord tor the
• advancement towards civil and religious liberty which this
country had made under his auspices; but he (Mr. Berke-
-1_92 would take leave most respectfully to urge upon him
b if!s.any one subject were more calculated than another
to de
deprive hint of the good feeling and gratitude of the
nation, it was, that he was disposed to abide by the per-
nicious doctrine of "finality." He (Mr. Berkeley) believed
be had disclaimed that doctrine—he trusted he had totally
eliscarthd it; but still the general impression abroad was,
that as regarded the Reform Bill, he was still predisposed to
main. ain it. It seemed -o him (Mr. Berkeley) that the as-
sertion of the dogma of " finality" in any nation was a
'convertible term with the assertion of the " perfection" of
that nation ; and to assert the perfection of any sublunary
measure whatever savoured strongly of arrogance and pre-
sumption, and should be scouted, above all, in these en-
lightened times. He (Mr. Berkeley) wished it to be dis-
tinctly uncle stood that he bad not been in any way iidt •
einced in bringing forward his motion by any agitations that
prevailed upon this subject out of doors. He w.is aware
that the class of persons calling themselves Chartist.,
adopted the ballot ae one of the five points of their charter ;
but he (Mr. Berkeley) considered the ballot to be disgraced
by their advocacy of it: for he considered the Chartist body
to be violent opponents of reason, and enemies of all true
reform. Such was the result of his observations; although
at the same time lie freely admitted that he fully believed
that many conscientious men supported the Charter. It
was from no, desire to fan any excitement existing upon
this subject that he now introduced this question; he was
solely actuated to do so from the respect which he enter-
tained for the industrial and trading classes, upon whom
open:voting pressed heavily. He entreated the House to
Strike off the fetters from such men, who so well deserved it
from their country, seeing they had passed through such
an ordeal recently, and bad nobly come out from it with the
highest credit to themselves.—(hear, hear.) He did not ask
Ahem to create any new constituents • toat was not his
prayer now; but he asked them, and asked them confidently,
to do justice to those constituents who already existed,
and had delegated the present Assembly with their authority
—he implored the House to do them justice, to seek no
Linger to oppress them, to seek no longer to be their task-
triasters ; but to allow them the same measure of liberty of
'thought, of conscience, and of action, which Honourable
Members themselves valued even above their lives; and he
(Mr. Berkeley) was sure, that as the best safeguard of the
throne was to be found in the affections of the people, so
Would they find that the best security, the best bulwark for
,the institutions of this great country, would be constituted
u 3" those bonds of gratitude, which they would materially-
help
to
weave around the hearts of the various orders of our
Iw4Lal community by the act of grace which he now craved
at the bands'of that House.—(Applause.) The Honourable
Member concluded by moving,—" That it is expedient, in
the election for Members to serve in Parliament, that the
votes of the electors be taken by way of ballot."
Colonel THOMPSON said it afforded him great pleasure
to follow the Hon. Mover of the question, because he felt it
' removed from his (Colonel Thompson's) side. the charge of
being men who wished to act in contradiction to the unity
-which was so essential to the well-being of the -country.
They did not present themselves as the organs of an in-
sulated patty; they marched under their proper officers, dis-
avowing all principles of disunion or discord ; and re-
joicing when they could see united with them those who
had ancestral connexions and territorial rights, which were
the pledges that they would not go along with them in
anything dangerous or generally hurtful. One of the
• • strong arguments used by the enemies of the ballot had
been, that the exercise of the franchise was a duty.
Now, with that its friends most entirely closed ; and the
Hon. Mover and himself (Colonel Thompson) had long
been in the habit of seeing, in the course of their pro-
fessional experience very similar duties discharged, and how?
When they had both sat at court -martial and having a duty
to perform, they sought to be protected in its exercise by
'what ho might designate a kind of ballot ; at all events,
uy, giving their opinions in secret, for the officers
took a solemn oath that they would never disclose their
"wn or any brother officer's opinion expressed in Court.
Nor was this all, for he could point to the Court where
Medical ( fficers sat, and where oaths were administered that
one member would neither divulge his own nor any other
member's vote. And why should not the veteran common
• soldier, posse-sing a vote, who saw how his officers sheltered
themselves by secrecy, claim to have the protection of the
ballot to shield him from the vengeance of the wealthy or
Powerful man whom he feared to offend by the• way he fell
bound •in his conscience to vote ? He would appeal to the
. Pon. Member whether the alacrity of the soldier in following
his, leader was not invariably much dependent upon the
consciousness that those in high stations exercised fairness
and even-handedness to their inferiors; and he wcuid ask
whether it was not politically and militarily advisable to
cherish and foster such sentiments of confidence in the minds
of the people? Their ancestors had acted upon this princi-
, ple, and to this their successes were owing; and this principle
it was that made the soldier and the civilian steady and
faithful to their superiors in the hour of trial. To take
a recent instance, the celebrated 10th of April last showed
.• that the people were, with but few exceptions, loyal and de-
, notedly attached to their ancient institutions; and again,
why had the late rebellion in Ireland gone off like a morning
fog,,and left no other feeling in that country except the hope
that England would not be placed behind France in the ex-
. hibition of its moderation after it had triumphed over every
resistance.—(Hear.) He ascribed it to the feeling gaining
ground, that the days had gone by when any one class
would regard its interests as inimical to those or any other
class- • Receet events must have convinced the aristocracy
that-no danger was to be apprehended from the reforms
sought by the people; they only sought for justice; and
had no real jealousy or antipathy to a hereditary aristocracy
that would manifest a disposition to deal fairly with them.—
(Hear.) With regard to the ballot, he (Colonel Thompson)
would ask one question—What had any honourable man to
]ose, by the downfall of intimidation, which would result
from protecting the humble voter? There might be some
few gentlemen who felt that they could not afford to part
with the tyrannical powers they now possessed over their
poorer brethren, but he was sure that ninety-nine out of
every one hundred of those whom lie now saw around him
entertained more honourable and humane sentiments. In
conclusion, he had much pleasure in seconding the motion.
Mr. W. FAGAN rose to vindicate
•his reverend friend Dr.
. Murphy from the animadversions passed upon his conduct
by the Hon. Mover in this question. He could say that
considerable exaggeration had ,existed as to the transactions
previous to Kinsale election, and the Rev. Doctor had never
practised any intimidation whatever to induce the voters to
vote for Mr. Watson ; on the contrary, he had never spoken
to them regarding the election, but he earnestly took the op-
portunity of impressing upon them the solemn duty of avoid-
mg all bribery and corruption. With reference to what had
taken place before the. Kinsale Election Committee of that
• House, he (Mr. Fagan) had never been made aware of the
circuusstasite4ilLit.was. alluded to that night, and he bad
only that moment looked over the evidence adduced by the
gar Ellen Brion) who spoke to having seen a bribe offered

to James Mahoney; and from the cross-examination it
appeared that she referred to her havri e mentioned the
circumstance when at confession with Dr. Murohy. The
sign which the Reverend Doctor had made to the girl, I,
if indeed he made any at all, doubtless was meant to
convey to the witness his sense e, d.isappr ,val at her
introducing before such a tribunal what occurred at so
solemn an occasion as a confession. He (Mr. Fagan) had
the honour of the Reverend Doctor's acquatu ance, and fully
believed him utterly incapable of intimidating any body ;
and he felt it to be only due to the ReVerend Gentleman to
state what he (Mr. Fagan) had now done to defend him in
his absence.
Mr. P. HOWARD rose amid cries of " Divide ! divide !"
He said he could not consent to any departure from the
great constitutional principles which had recommended
open voting to our ancestors. He maintained that the
franchise was a trust to be exercised not only for the voter
himself, but also for the entire community, under a solemn
responsibility, and subject to that guarantee and safeguard
as to its faithful exercise, which publicity alone could
effectually afford. He detested bribery and corruption as
much as the most zealous advocate of the ballot could;
and he regarded those who resorted to such disreputable prac-
tices to gain a seat in that House as the very worst enemies
to open voting in existence ; but be believed t tie vast majority
of the electors of this country were beyond the pale cf these
corrupt influences; and he further believed, notwithstand-
ing all that had been alleged to the contrary, that experi-
ence proved that the tradesman who steadily and inde-
pendently obeyed his conscience, without being a bitter par-
tizan, was ever in the long run most reepested by his feb
low-townsmen, and who was at the same time very rarely a
loser of custom in his business. Ha was, he confessed, fa-
vourable to approximating the suffrage in very small con-
stituencies almost to household sutiraga; but he trusted the
House would resist all attempts to engraft the exotic of the
ballot upon the indigenous stuck of our ancient and vene-
rable constitution.
Colonel SIBTHORP had never practised himself, nor au-
thorised any one else to practise for him, either bribery or
corruption in any shape or form; and therefore he was quite
indifferent as to the result of the present motion, and would
entirely abstain from voting upon it at all. He would leave
the Noble Lord at the head of the Government to lead his
own troops, but he believed they would be guilty of mutiny
and leave him in the lurch on the present occasion.—(A
laugh. )
Lord DUDLEY STUART cordially supported the motion,
although he did not cherish such sanguine expectations from
the ballot as some of its warmest advocates seemed to do,
because he feared that those who were determined to be cor-
rupt, and use corrupt influence, would devise some other
scheme by which to carry out their wicked purposes. Still
the evils of intimidation were so great in the towns and
counties of the kingdom, that unless some measure were
adopted as an auxiliary to the Bill for Preventing Corrupt
Practices at Elections, which had recently been introduced,
the people would lose all their confidence in the Government,
and discredit their sincerity; for if bribery were a species of
corruption. intimidation was equally so, and equally claimed
their efforts to repress it. He had supported every one of
the recent reform propositions of the Honourable elember
for Montrose (Mr. Hume), and he hoped the House would
at least now adopt the ballot, whieh was one of them. He
hoped their next step would be to shorten the duration of
Parliaments, and he (Lord Dudley Stuart) would take the
opportunity of now giving notice that he would himself,
early in the next session, bring forward a measure to consti-
tute the Parliaments triennial.
Mr. URQUHART said the House had had some expe-
rience in a recent debate of the value of past reforms. He
thought the financial condition of the country claimed at
that moment the first consideration, and he believed that if
they went on tinke'ring the institutions of the country, the
result would be to create incessant alarm, and in the end to
reduce the English constitution to a :cuput mod uum. The
speech of the Honourable Member only tended to show
that the House was very corrupt. Its corruption, how-
ever, was known before, and would not be diminished by
such motions as that under consideration. The Honour-
able Member had, in support of his case, referred to
sacred history, to show in what mode the successor of the
apostate apostle was chosen. As well might he have brought
forward the superscription on a Roman coin as a reason for
changing the stamp of the English Mint. The apostles
very naturally followed the practice which prevailed at the
time in the states of 'Greece, about which there was nothing
to recommend it to Englishmen. The Honourable Member
for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. Cobden) had on
more than one occasion spoken of the contrast between the
practice of clubs and the mode of electing Members of that
House. It was strange that an Hon. Gentleman who was
generally so well informed should not be aware that in clubs,
even in the Carlton Club, which he expressly named, the
practice of voting had been set aside, because it enabled ten
or twelve Members, who banded themselves together, to do
what they pleased. As regarded America, he would observe
that so far from purity of election being the result of voting
by ballot, the reverse was the fact; and he trusted that the
people of this country would not be induced by groundless
and ignorant analogies, to abandon the performance of a great
practical duty.
After a few words from Mr. TANCRED, which were totally
inaudible,
Lord J. RUSSELL said—Sir, I think it due to the Hon.
Gentleman who has made this motion, and who has sup-
ported it by arguments of great ability and ingenuity,
that before I give a vote contrary to the motion, I should
state some of the grounds which will induce me thus
to vote. ( Hear, hear.) I can hardly pretend, Sir, to any
novelty of argument, because it has been my fate on oche r
occasions to speak on the subject now before the House. I
consider, and in that view I am supported by the Hon.
and Gallant Gentleman who seconded the motion, that this
is a proposal to make the exercise of the right of voting an
act in contradiction to the usual policy and principles of
stir Government and Constitution.—(Hear, hear.) The
Hon. and Gallant Gentleman says that in courts-martial
the members of the court take an oath that they will not
reveal the opinion which they and their fellows may give
upon any case under consideration. It has been thought
requisite for the due management ,f courts-martial, and for
the preservation of discipline, to introduce that rule into
such proceedings. But it is a special rule ail' ming military
bedies, and at variance with the general rule of our Con-
stitution, having been introduced, as I imagine, for the pur-
poses of the special discipline of the army and navy of this
country.—( Hear, hear.) Now, Sir, not denying that such a
rule may be right and necessary for the purpose of main-
taining military or naval discipline, of ensuring obedienne,
and of inducing due subordination to the chide of military or
naval bodies, 1 say that I stand here, not to introduce into
the general practice of the constitution those special rules
which are necessary for the preservation of military or naval
subordination, but to preserve the open and free spirit of
our Englise institutions.—(Hear, hear.) Looking, Sir, at
examples, I do not find any instance in which secrecy is
made the rule of our political institutions.—(Hear, hear.) I
fine that in the case of a trial it is thought advisable, and
even necessary, for the due administration of justice,
that the court should be open. The witnesses appear
and give their testimony in public; the judge delivers
his opinion in public before the court and the assembled
people, there being reporters to take down everything that
ne says; and if the jury deliberate in secret, their vote must,
at least in case of conviction, be known ; for it must be the
unanimous verdict of twelve men. Therefore, Sir, in courts
of justice publicity is the rule. I can understand that the
argument might be used—and if we are to introduce this
principle into the right of voting, I do not know but that it
may have great force—that it would be far better, if the
witnesses were not subject to intimidation for telling the
truth, that it would be far better, in order that the judge
might be entirely impartial, if he were not an object of put,.
lie censure and public calumny for taking that course which
at thereforearndgunin
et, Irepeat,
betteriftrnrh
trials were
be
sheicsrceotracnidenncoetmpauy tabldicic.Tteh,a
ou
is)epdo,s
ebdu tt
0I
tcho
en cgeei
nv a u
st
and it
spiritw ou lod be a
f our n
sargumentinstitutions.—([sear, tuentirely(rp
ofl- House
thiLaur.2e,
artheollt,igthhaent,onaestiim'egeairtdswastheth,dmeglihbtertaltiaiotntshe
ought not to permit the presence of strangers, and for a
alonndg tsheeriesdeolifbe3ryears
ss t roafn gtehres
iwieorues
en oin
wt e
r facteoniy aid)aniri
t tti
a el
ityl ,
known; yet, as the spirit of freedom gained ground—as
our institutions became more popular, it was insisted
upon, asserted, and finally conceded, that all the deli-
berations of this and the other House of Parliament should
be public. Again, it was not exactly known, except
from private memoranda and notes taken by individuals,
what were the votes of Members on particular questions.
An Honourable Friend of mine, however, thought it advisable
that the votes of every Member should be !mare, and that
on that account they should be regularly taken down by the
officers of the House, and printed with the votes. After a
struggle, he succeeded in his object, and now the votes of
every Member on every subject may be known to the whole
country. It might be• contended that the decisions of this
[louse would be more impartial without this publicity; that
Members would have a better opportunity of consulting their
own judgment and their own consciences, it they were not
liable to those attacks from their constituents, and those im-
putations upon their motives which are consequences of their
votes being known. But still you have deciaed, and decided
I believe rightly, that publicity shall bs the rule, thinking
that, whatever may be the inconvenience of publicity, it is
desirable that a man should have to stand up and defend his
vote; that he should not deny any vote which lie may have
given, and that he should vote openly and publ cly, according
as his opinion may dictate. I think then, Sir, 1 may jtis lv
say that what is now proposed is at least at variance with
the general spirit of our institutions.—(Hear, hear.)
1 will say further that it accords with the popular
spirit of our institutions that all these public doings—
the exercise of every political trust should be carried
on in the face of the country and of the world. We
are now asked to say that there shall be an exception,
and that exception shall be with regard to the constituent
body of this kingdom. The Hon. Gentleman proposes no
alteration in the number of electors. He still leaves us open
to that charge which was made by the Hon. Gentleman who
is now sitting near him (Mr. Hume, as was understood),
that only one in seven of the male persons of adult age were
to have the right of voting. In this one iu seven he proposes
to leave the power of electing Menitstis of Parliament, un-
controlled by any knoisledge of their - proceedings, un-
controlled by any exercise of public opinion, and completelypietei).)
(if the object could be effected—upon that point I may speak
afterwards—but if the object could be effected coin
concealed. Therefore one.seventh of the male adults of this
kingdom are to have what the constitution of Venice gave to
the inquisitors of that state, a secret and despotic power over
all the affairs of this kingdom. For, be it observed, the
electors of this kingdom are the ultimate judges with re-
spect to any political changes or any political measures
which may be required.--(Hear, hear.) Whatever may
be the wishes of the Crown, whatever the opinion of the
House of Lords, such are the powers vested in this House
that the Crown would have no resource in case of a dif-
ference with it but to dissolve Parliament and appeal to the
great body of the electors, and if that body should send
representatives to this House in favour of some par-
ticular claim, or of some particular measure, there would
be no force in the constitution of this country ; and so long
as this House retains the whole power over the supplies—the
power of the purse in its hands—l see not how there can be
any force in that constitution to resist this vote of the elec-
tors, as expressed by a large and decided majority of the
[louse of Commons. Now, if this power is so great, if it is,
in fact, the ultimate and supreme power of deciding the des-
tinies of this country, so much the more cautious should you
be in saying in what manner the power is to be exercised ;
and while you say that everything in this country shall be
public—while you declare that openness and publicity is the
great rule of our constitution, and distinguish this modern
free constitution from many of the institutions of ancient re•
publics—so long as you say this, you should be cautious how
you make a change under which this supreme, this irrespon-
sible, this despotic power is to be exercised in secret, without
sly public opinion to review it, and according to the mere
wdeSrsitra,nlidnatnhye
inconstitution w ho
Imciotuilsd
well understand
ta c
oae se
There
foll aosfnar2adr:
eihnes democratic caprice
is
hn.ltasoantdhyeecinid
" The sovereignty is placed in numbers.
iell;iotnhseyo aadvueltnomt
nothing
into
dthoibsuctoutnotsrya;
which party has majority, and if they choose to exercise
their powers secretly they should be allowed to do so." 1;31d
o
such is not the nature t. your present electoral constitution.
The very fault which the Hon. Member for Montrose has
attributed to the electoral body is, that it is a select body.
It is poly a portion of the people of this country who hay*

the elective franchise, and, therefore, the franchise is a trust
repoeed in them which they are to exercise for the benefit of
the whole community. Well, then, the question is now, haw
can they best exercise it? How can they exercise it in the
manner most likely to be conducive to the good of the com-
munity? I say that they will exercise it best if they give
their votes publicly—if every man is obliged to say, I give
my vote for such a person," and knows that he must abide
by his vote. Now, Sir, Ido not deny that there is great
fierce in the objections made by the Hon. Gentleman (Mr.
11. Berkeley) to the present system. With great justice to
his own argument, he has laid stress on the scenes of intimi-
dation and corruption which take place under the present
mode of voting. Undoubtedly, these are great defects ;
but, at the same time, I would not, on account of de-
fe.s or abuses, surrender a great principle— e
u W ar. )
and that, too, a principle which I consider to be an essential
and vital one in our constitution.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon.
Gentleman save, that in a certain case at Bristol lie had a
great many more promises than he had received on a former
occasion ; but that his opponents said that they would turn
one hundred of the voters who had so promised, and he added
that they did, in fact, turn sixty of them, some by corruption,
others by intimidation. But that, no doubt, was not only a
great loss to the Hon. Gentleman, but very disgraceful, both to
those persons who used the means employed, and to theYe who
permitted themselves to be so turned. Bat another question
now arises. Suppose we were to say, " We find these abuses
so great, so odious, that we are determined to try whether
secresy will not do—whether there be not a certain mechan-
ism by which some very ingenious cerpenter, some person
who can make a box very cleverly, can secure to us all the
benefits ef freedom of voting in this country." I do not
believe that, practically, you would attain that object;
I do not believe that you can make that change;
I believe, in the first place, that if it were un-
derstood that large sums would be paid to certain
electors if the election was carried by the opponent of the
Hon. Gentleman, the existence of the ballot would not, for
example, prevent those who had promised to vote for the
Hon. Gentleman from being turned, and voting against
him. Ido not think it at all follows, though it is usually
argued by the advocates of the ballot, that the man who has
the power of voting secretly will vote against the person
from whom he has received, or expects to receive, a sum of
money for his votes. I believe that, as according to the old
proverb, " There is honour among thieves," so also there
would also be a sort of honour among those who had been
bribed, under the influence of which they would say, "These
learerriceeitedantellielmw:ip
sviort,espfeo,rikittlimge
generallycandidate,votes, by which you cin change the habits of a people.—
ntwoi aysgubepsepi hiearftvi esw beenhtohma t there is no ingenious method of taking
(Hear, hear.) I really do not believe you will find that a
man who bad been canvassed for his vote would say, " I am
a decided blue," or " I am a decided yellow ;" " I am a de-
cided Whig," or " I am a decided Tory ;" and endeavour to
deceive everybody for' a fortnight together, in order
to keep the favour of his landlord, or to preserve the
support of his customers, and when the moment for the
voting arrived, give his vote in direct contradiction to all
that he had previously proposed. I do not think that it is in
the English character, and that it is the meaning of those
who say that the ballot is un-English. Ido not think that
in the midst of the excitement of an election, when some
men are saying ' I am for this candidate," and others " I am
for that candidate," when they are talking warmly and ar-
guing in the market •place, or some other public resort, that
their candidate is the best—l do not think that it is in the
English character for men under such circumstances to pro-
pose what they do not feel, and in the end to give a vote in
direct contradiction to all that they have been saying. I
believe, therefore, that those persons who would take any
pains to find out what voters meant to do, would actually
discover it, that the men would not disguise the way in
which they intended to vote, and that there would be the
same kind of intimidation, the same kind of influence em-
ployed as is now used at elections.—(llear, hear.) My
opinion is, that when you had sacrficed the great
principle f publicity, when you had resorted to se-
cresy, you would not find that you had gained
the object which you had in view ; that with a great deal of
contrivance, and a great deal of ambiguity, you would come
at length to pretty much the same result, have pretty much
the same influences—the same corruption—the same intimi-
dation as you now wish to remove. Now I know it was the
opinion of the late Lord Spencer, who used to vote for the
ballot, because he thought that if people wished for the
ballot they ought to have it, that the result of elections
would be pretty much the same under the ballot as it is at
present. But if the result of elections would be very nearly
the same as it is now, there is surely no sufficient ground for
adopting this change in our institutions.—(Hear, hear.)
But, Sir, I think those who consider the adoption of the
ballot an advisible change in our institutions, ought to show
an instance of a country in which the ballot has produced
those effects which they say it would be so advantageous in
producing here; they ought to give us some kind of
example or precedent by which we might be guided.
Now I never could find in ancient history, or
in ancient writers, any goad authority in favour
of the ballot. It would be pedantic to refer to what
has been said on this question, and indeed all that could be
introduced has been referred to on former occasions in this
House. There was the ballot, and I believe that that was a
better contrivance than was ever established anywhere else—
in the Republic of Venice. There they had a contrivance of
ballot iiivotving five or six different elections, one within an-
other, thirty choosing forty-five; forty-five choosing nine;
nine choosing sixteen ; and so on : so that ultimately nobody
could know how the vote had been brought about. But then
that was a Government of extreme secresy, and, at the same
time, of extreme aristocratic despotism; and, therefore, it
certainly does not afford an example of which the advocates
of the ballot have cause to be proud. We have had of late an
example of the ballot under the constitution of Fratice,which
certainly does not tend to encourage any other country to
a.topt it. We know also that it exists along with universal
suffrage in the United States of America; but nobody pretends
that the voting in the United States iseit her secret or free from
a great deal of corruption, from a great deal of treating, and,
above all, from a most disgraceful system of condemnat iou
and influences by a few persons acting upon a great multi-
tude. I have heard of seven or eight people there who
could move forty or fifty thousand persons to vote for a par-
ticular candidate whom they had chosen ; and I own that
there is nothing in the elections in the United States of
America which induces me to think that we should make a
good charge if we endeavour to imitate them.—( Hoer,
hear. ) Now, Sir, an lion. Gentleman whom I see sitting on
a bench behind me (Mr. Cobden) referred one day to the
practice of the clubs in Loadon, and other institutions of that
description, and said that in them the ballot was generally
;Monte I. The Hon. Gentleman who has just sat dawn de-
nied that that is the case, meaning, probably, that the
practice is being abandoned ; but whether that be so or not,
I hold that the case is entirely difTereut from that which we
are now considering.—Hear.) What is the case of a club?
You there have an association of three or four hundred dif-
ferent persons. A gentleman wishes to belong to the club.
The question is not whether he shall be the solo representa-
tive of the club, or whether he or some other gentleman shall
represent it, but whether he is a companion with whom the
members would like to associate—a person of whose manners
and conversation they would approve; and whether or not,
for that reason he should be elected into the club. Now, in
the first place, it is not a very great distinction to be chosen
as one of those three or four hundred; and, in the next place,
it is certainly not very agreeable—not, certainly, a personal
offence, but at the same time not very agreeable—for a gen-
tleman voting against another on such an occasion, to say
that he does not choose to associate with the person who has
been
pipleorarolsrdpoe onsfsGe d. But the case of an election is totally dif.
ferent. In that case you have sometimes to choose between
another.two
who
uwrhocahnoldl onediara
tenso
wsae
ntd two o
speaking
p political l iliocefamal
nboeperliseneitotoinoetn)e
aa
t e nnle l
io ts whichtwo
there.
yswThentulhepqwocull etiuitsobitemi, oabnl
opinions.—(Hear,
u)el
vrnweii,oe, is, not
like
d (hi
asit whether
at, hpeprr associatest
hear.)he o
n mc, candidate
gr,i
aid
slati
let a
tno
member i s a
er
e
poet. thesojl
Nl:eerpNT:eSme.eniti
understand a person saying openly to a candidate—" I have
whomb
eenl long acquainted
e.
stlrve,yrt,tovahuhianittloet
31,Ieios
unhpwreioNgoi.
political
essolaan•
lowerunoe,htp7iiymnfeooicourtbnlespaf
have
aearr
esrvoeaeni
nkmaglnelyntn),l7t.);;l
wne
:Et
ninfsa,
while
fibuol
should
Eaenenlyi-I
yours are the very reverse of mine; he will represent my
opinions best in a political assemby, and this is a question of
political opinions, and nothing else. I shall give my vote
for your adversary and not for you." There is nothing per-
sonally offensive in that language—nothing, in fact, at which
any man would have a right to take offence . it is not a cise
in-which a man has to decide whom he will associate with
and whom he will not ; but it is a matter of public duty and
public trust, and the question is, who shall represent the
individual in the great councils of the nation. So I hold
that this is not a case analogous to that which we are
now arguing. The Honourable Gentleman then alluded
to another case, which I believe was not altogether
appropriately introduced. The Honoyu)orsalboitle,
there
etlbemeianng
said the choice of the Apostles was a case in point; now in
that instance it was not a question of the majority or mi-
-1 tapeossttleestitllo aseL'ac-t
timeenda
bmn
se,adtt
aers
other. lAs
one by lot to join with Ln
in interpreting the will of God.
twoueri tpYe'rsbounts Ntvoh
His proposi-
tion was not brought forward in the shape of a Bill, which
These were not the only difficulties the Hon. Gentleman had
n
they could discuss in its various stages, and by which
toa va-
cancy,
contendari d i ni t wwodai determine
themei(airdemtebirnemee respect to his proposition.
tinhoeyiec(oitulvdoteisltlgablfits,rh.bylw Members ofthat
Parliament,theballo declar
ballot
bshuotultdhebeHtulnie.
Gentleman merely proposed a resolution, ing that
such a change in the mode of voting was expedient. Now,
such a change could only be effected by law, which must be
assented to by Parliament before it could be adopted. I
therefore held it to be very inexpedient to pass a resolution
condemning the present mode of voting ; for the Hon. Gen-
tleman does not propose to introduce a Bill which is to go
through its various a stages by which this change is
to be effected.— (Rear, hear.) 'lf we are to have such a
change, let a Bill for that purpose be brought forward
which we can consider, and see how the Hun. Member
proposes to effect his object. All that the Honourable Gen-
tleman now did watt merely to propose a resolution to be
placed on the journals of the House, that it is expedient
that the votes for the election of Members of that House
should be secret, and be taken by way of ballot. Now this
is a course of prociredirig not. very consistent with the prac-
tice of this House, n or can it be attended with any public ad-
vantage. Certainlyt.:the Honourable Member might follow
up his resolution. su.pi toeing it to be adopted, by proposing
to introduce a Bill ; bt it I should oppose the introduction of
such a Bill, because I believe such a change would be inju-
rious, and not be attended with advantage to the community.
(Hear, hear.) It wee aid be a change which would be quite
contrary to that open system 'which had ever prevailed
n7t believeeould
in this country—it we 'old be a change to adopt this prin-
ciple of secret voting, which I am satisfied would fail in
effect, because it Y
hear.) do
nottha that
changeth efr effect
of thenavowal e open
of opinions which char: icterksed the people of this country.—
adop-
tion(Hear, of the plan would ba attended with any great results,
for I believe that if re( to alopt the scheme and it failed, as I
am satisfied it would, cc,mplaints would continue to be made
that corruption still e x%sted, and intimidation still prevailed,
and, therefore, we she aeld be told that we must go on with
further changes as t
,he ballot had f • ailed, because it had not
been accompanied with other measures I—( aeud cries of
"Hear, hear," from Mr. Cobden and other Hon, Members
The lion. Gentlem an, then, admitted this, and denied the
observation that t' tie ballot would not be sufficient of itself.
—(Hear, hear.) If this is the case, I think that it
would be far be tter at once to proceed to such a pre
Position as had been made by the Honourable Member
for 'lontrose.-1 :Hear, hear.) I believe the Hon. Member
was found fat t with on a former occasion when he
brought forwa'N I his motion, and was told lie would have
had a better sir Alice of success if he had confined himself to
one propositiot i instead of asking for universal suffrage, the
lessening the duration of Parliaments, electoral districts, and
vote by ballo t. Whether that proposition was wise or un-
wise I wall iot stop to consider, but at any rate we had then
the whole "scheme before us.—(Hear, hear.) It is now con-
fessed=—ant I I would beg Hon. Members who intend only to
vote fit th is change will so reflect on it—it is now avowed
openly- the t this change alone would not produce a perma-
nent. and I oeneficial improvement, but that it must be re-
gareaed ora ly as a part of other changes.—(Hear, hear.)
ath rho e observations, I shall warn the House not to
adopt this leroposal for secret voting; and, above all,
,after
the avowal ',which we have heard, I cettaiuly shall vote
against it.—(clleere..i