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

• Y;,.

'nit SUN, LONDON,

!lag contests to wring and extort from them their promises
in his favor; and when he had at length 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 unfortunates, that he was
the most honoured man in the world, in being elected by
their free and unbiassed suffrages.—(Laughter) Then, hav-
ing been thus returned to that House, whenever such a
question as the ballot was brought forward, he ( Mr.
Berkeley) had always observed that such candidates were
ever foremost to enact the manly British lion, and indig•
nantly 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.—(Laughter.) Well,
then, this was the system to which the Right Hon. Gentle-
man the Member for Northampton would adhere, because he
will 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 hero 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-
/1118e 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-
viction ; and would not be made except to one who took an
ungenerous advantage of him, and who possessed the power
of inflicting a penalty in case of refusal. Compulsory promises
might be broken, but those which were voluntarily given
would be faithfully kept if the vote could be secretly recorded.
e would cite an instance that fell under his own notice in
It'PPort• 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
not to 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
e 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
me evening.) Before four o'clock to-morrow we will change
100 of your promises." Well, after the election, he Mr.
""erkeley) was informed
.by his friends that sixty of( the
trehmissa which had been voluntarily made to Trim had
" changed, it being estimated that 40 of the men were
intimidated;' and twenty bought. Did not such a case as 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
fair and open manner, and as a candidate sought only free
and voluntary promises, or to the base suborner of conscience,
ithci eame,with his bribes and intimidation? He put this
forward to the House as one of the strongest instances that
and be adduced to prove the harmlessness of the ballot,
‘,"'"'", the iniquity that prevailed under the existing system of
the He had abstained from going into the question of
sgse 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-
"'en, 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
Deers adopted by the highest authority that could possibly be
addueed for any earthly institution.. The very first Christian
election that ever took place was transacted by ballot.—
(Hear, bear.) And it was an election under the most
ibkemb 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 1•20 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-
litY• Now he (Mr. Berkeley) would not pretend to say that
t_tie 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 !notion; but he trusted that as
this had been hitherto left an open question by the Govern-
ment, 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-
Pescissslly wherever there were real grievances to be redressed.
-,7ksotear.) It seemed to him (Mr. Berkeley) that the im-
rol'ement 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 himself 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-
tress; and he felt deep gratitude to the Noble Lord for the
advancement towards civil and religious liberty which this
country had made under his auspices; but he (Mr. Berke-
ley)t would take leave most respectfully to urge upon him
that,
a "ta"y_one subject were more calculated than another
nat_on
deprive him of the good feeling and gratitude of the
, it was, that he was disposed to abide by the per•
vicious doctrine of "finality." He (Mr. Berkeley) believed
he had disclaimed that doctrine—he trusted he had totally
discarded it; but still the general impression abroad was,
that as regarded the Reform Bill, he was still predisposed to
main' ain it. It seemed to 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
In
sasure whatever savoured strongly of arrogance and pre-
sumption, and should be scouted, above all, in these en-
Lghtened times. He (Mr. Berkeley) wished it to be dis-
tinctly understood that he had not been in any way influ-
enced in bringing forward his motion by any agitations that
Prevailed upon this subject out of doors. He was aware
that the class of persons calling themselves Chartists,
adopted the ballot fie one of the live points of their charter;
1,
b"t he (Mr. Berkeley) considered the ballot to be disgraced
"y their advocacy of it : for lie 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 he freely admitted that he fully believed
that many conscientious men supported the Charter. It
vies 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
°Pelt voting pressed heavily. lie entreated the House to
eftrike off the fetters from such men, who so well deserved it
from their country, seeing they had passed through such
an ordeal recently, and had nobly come out from it with the
highest credit to themselves.—(Hear, hear.) He did not ask
"em to create any new constituents; that was not his
trayer
, now; but he asked them, and asked them confidently,
L's "0 justice to those constituents who already existed,
had delegated the present Assembly with their authority
e implored the House to do them justice, to seek no
tri°nger to oppress them, to seek no longer to be their task-
masters ; but to allow them the same measure of liberty of
ssfeugut, of conscience, and of action, which Honourable
(limbers themselves valued even above their lives; and he
thr,r). Berkeley) was sure, that as the best safeguard of the
j'e was to be found in the affections of the people, so
wouldtb... they find that the best security, the best bulwark for
b'':_!nstitutions of this great country, would be constituted
yeiLhose bonds of gratitude, which they would materially
soateiPae Weave around the hearty of the various orders of our
► community by the act of grace which he new craw, d
tingeands of that House.—(Applause.) The Honourable
Mth_e,r.concluded by moving,—" That it is expedient, in
election for Members to serve in Parliament, that the
'Ts of the electors be taken by way of ballot."
to follow THompsoN said it afforded him great pleasure
bethe Hun. Mover of the question, because he felt it
beinmovedghinen who wished to act in contradiction to the unity
was so essential to the well-being of the :country.
he
did rot present themselves as the organs of an in-
:10 ted party; they marched under their proper officers, dis-
., j'"ng all principles of disunion or discord ; and re-
oic,
"ing when they could see united with them those who
h_
ancestral connexions and territorial rights, which were
abthe?idges that they would not go along with them in
anything 1 nag 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.
•
with that its friends most entirelyclosed; 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
s , to perform, they sought to be protected in its
l exerciseevents, by
what he might designate a kind of ballot ; at
by.
giving their opinions in secret, for the officers
all took a solemn oath that they would never disclose their
own or any brother officer's opinion expressed in Court.
Nor was this all, for he could point to the Court where
medical officers 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, possessing 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 felt
bound • n his conscience to vote ? He would appeal to the
lion. Member whether the alacrity of the soldier in following
is leader was not invariably much dependent up on the
.consciousness that those in high etationsexercisedfairness
and even-handedness to their inferiors; and he would 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 preset-
l''es and to this their successes were owing ;and this principle
f
at was
that made the soldier and the civilian steady and
aithful 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-
v_o,tedly attached to their ancient institutions; and again,
• 'viay had the late rebellion in Ireland gone off like a morning
fog, and s,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
resistance.— gaining
(Hear.) He ascribed it to the feeling
everyground, that the days had gone by when any one class
elviould regard its interests as inimical to those ce' any other
s!'ss• Recent events must have convinced the aristocracy
aat no danger was to be apprehended from the reforms
a‘osuht by the people; they only sought for justice; and
bas
no real jealousy or antipathy to a hereditary aristocracy
thatl would manifest a disposition to deal fairly with them.—
t..) With regard to the ballot, he (Colonel Thompson)
,_3nid ask one question—What had any honourable man to
a by the downfall of intimidation, which would result
fromprotecting the humble voter? There might be sonic
w gentlernen who felt that they could not afford to part
With
poorer
the tyrannical powers they now possessed over their
*ver brethren, but he was sure that ninety-nine out of
one hundred of those whom he now saw around hint
econclusion he
more honourable and humane sentiments. In
he had much pleasure in seconding the motion.
Mr, W. FAGAN rose to vindicate his reverend friend Dr.
lurnhv from the animadversions passed upon his conduct
by tile. Hon• Mover in this question. He could say that
Previous to
had ,existed as to the transactions
flon,r_ertvteauit;irshtio Kinsale election, and the Rev. Doctor had never
~rPraactised any intimidation whatever to induce the voters to
Mr. Watson; on the contrary, he had never spoken
I.° them regarding the election, but he earnestly took the op-
it (it impressing upon them the solemn duty of avoid-
.",tie if bribery and corruption. With reference to what had
Vitt n Place before the Kinsale Election Committee of that
i!(?lree, he (Mr. Fagan) had never been made aware of the
circumstance Wait was , alluded to that night, and he had
010.11111), Ethilaetrtiriaulent looked over the evidence adduced by the
who spoko to having seen a bribe offered

to James Mahoney; and from the cross-examination it
appeared that she referred to her having mentioned the
circumstance when at confession with Dr. Murphy. The
sign which the Reverend Doctor had made to the girl,
if indeed he made any at all, doubtless was meant to
convey to the witness his sense of disapproval 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 Reverent Doctor's acquaintance, and fully
believed him utterly incapable of intimidating any body ;
and he felt it to be only due to the Reverend Gsntleman 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 fur 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 is
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 enerni•s
to open voting in existence ; but he believed the vast majority
of the electors of this country were beyond the pale of 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 respected by his fel-
low-townsmen, and who was at the same time very rarely a
loser of custom in his business. He was, he confessed, fa-
vourable to approximating the suffrage in very small con-
stituencies almost to household suffrage; but he trusted the
House would resist all attempts to engraft the exotic of the
ballot upon the indigenous stock 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 saecies 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 Member
for Montrose (Mr. Hume), and he hoped the House would
at least now adopt the ballot, which 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. lie
thought the financial condition of the country claimed at
that moment the first consideration, and he believed that if
they went on tinkering 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 mortuum. 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 othe 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
our 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 of courts-martial, and for
the preservation of discipline, to introduce that rule into
such proceedings. But it is a special rule affecting military
bodies, 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 thin
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 obedience,
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 English 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
find 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
he 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
that. 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 ot pito-
lic censure and public calumny fur taking that course which
his conscience may dictate, and therefore I
btter if
mighttrials were
secret, and not public. That argument, repeat,
used, but I conceive that it would be an argument entirely
opposed to the genius and spirit of our institutions.—( Hear,
hear.) Well, then, as regards the deliberations of this
House, although at one time it was thsught that the House
ought not to permit the presence of strangers, and for a
song series of years strangers were not i:1 fact admitted,
and the deliberations of the House were only partially
known ; yet, as the spirit of- treedotn gained ground—as
our institutions became more popular, it was insisted
upon, asset ted, 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
front private memoranea 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 knawn, and that
on that account they should be regularly taken down by the
officers ut 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
House would be more impartial without this publicity; that
Members would have a better opportunity of consulting their
own judgment anal their own consciences, if they were nut
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 decided, and decided
I believe rightly, that publicity shall be 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 he may have
given, and that he should vote openly and publicly, according
as his opinion may dictate. I think then, Sir, 1 may jus'
say that what is now proposed is at least at variance with
the general spirit of our institutions.—(Hear, hear.)
I 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 then try 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 'toys sitting near him (11r. 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 in seven he proposes
to leave the power of electing Members of Parliament, un-
controlled by any knowledge of their proceedings, un-
controlled by any exercise of public opinion, and completely
(if the object could be effected—upon that point I may speak
afterwards—but if the object could be effected completely)
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
i louse of Commons. Now, if this power is so great, if it is,
it ni
ofiaocs t
0,
tt ht i
oi mu
nett
r3e
y, and d ssum sm op
cr
he nttlei
op omwoerre ocfa
odtei
oc
ui dsi ns
hg
otohle de d
yous-
andbgppeuruee.b.ei,an:
vet: whatoeihile oonn3,usg:ay th
that
manner
everythingthe
countryis to be
shallexercised b
e
rule of or uas constitution, declare that openness
distinguishan d pu
blicity is the
cs—so
anksteitautcihoannfgroem many of the institutions of ancient re •
you this modern
undersa yw this,hic
tr
you ti(i)tyouh should
supreme,b thiscautious
rre,
phoonw-
sible, this despotic power is to be exesrcised in secret, without
any public opinion to review it, and according to the mere
will and caprice of those in whom it is vested. Sir, tin the
case of a democratic constitution I could well understand any
cmidiell;iotnhsey
one saying, " The sovereoignty is placed in numbers.
are
tho
em manyto d aadvuelt males int this country,
which party has the majority,
irt hies rfor a rt
itning o d but to say
and they choose to exercise
their powers secretly they should be allowed to do so." Bat
such is not the nature of 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 only a portion of the people of this country Rho haTe

the elective franchise, and, therefore, the franchise is a trust
reposed in them which they are to exercise for the benefit of
the whole community. Well, then, the question is now, how
I 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
force in the objections made by the Hon. Gentleman (Mr.
H. 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 ere great defects ;
but, at the same time, I would not, on account of de-
feeta or abuses, surrender a great principle (Hear. )
and that, too, a principle which I consider to be an essential
and vital one in our constitution.—( Hear, hear.) The lion.
Gentleman says, that in a certain case at Bristol he 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 those 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 carpenter, sonic person
who can make a box very cleverly, can secure to us all the
benefits of 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 Tote 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
wages have been earned. and I will vote for the candidate
to support whom I received them." Sir, speaking generally,
my belief is that there is no ingenious method of taking
votes by which y ou can change the habits of a eople.—
(Hear, hear.) I really do not believe you will finpd that a
man who had 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. Ido 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.—( Hear, 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 'rote 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 involving 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 France,whicle
certainly does not tend to encourage any other country to
adopt 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 is either secret or tree from
a great deal of corruption, from a great deal of treating, and,
above all, from a most disgraceful system of condemnation
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 change if we endeavour to imitate them.—(Hear,
near.) Now, Sir, an Hon. Gentleman whom I see sitting on
a bench behind me (Mr. Cobden) referred one day to the
practice of the clubs in London, and other institutions of that
description, and said that in them the ballot was generally
adopted. The Hon. Gentleman who has just sat down 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 different 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 sole 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 proposed. But the case of an election is totally dif-
ferent. In that case you have sometimes to choose between
two persons who hold one set of political opinions and two
who hold another. I am now speaking of an election at which
there are four candidates and two Members to be chosen.
The question here is, not whether the candidate is a person
with whom you would like to associate as a member of the
same club, but whether lie is a person who is fit to represent
you political opinions.—( Hear, hear.) Sir, I can very well
understand a person saying openly to a candidate—"l have
been long acquainted with you, you are a gentleman for
whom I entertain the highest respect personally ; I should
much prefer you to your opponent, for I have known you for
many years. while I never saw him before in my life; but
then I know that his political opinions are my own, while
yours are the very reverse of mine ; lie 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 nothinss per-
sonally offensive in that language—nothing, in fact, at which
any man would have a right to take offence . it is not a case
in which a man has to decide whom he will associate with
ind whom he will not ; but it is a matter of public duty and
public trust, and the question is, who shall represent the
that this is not a cas
individual in the greatocoaunnacloilgsoonfs the
tnhaattiown.hicr
v,l,ehaorlde
e ihii
which
ulr a b 1
believee G'entlme,iansa nn
othen
altogether alluded
to another The Honourable Gentleman
case in point; now in
now arguing
said the choice of the Apostles was a
arguing.
of the majority or mi-
that instance it was not a questiiint,
appropriately introduced.
eority, but to determine the matterdbyes there being
two persons who had been name
by the other apostles to select
aney, and it was determined as Atoles to ere a Va-
Gentleman had
These were not the only difficulties the •
His proposie
to contend in with respect to his proposition. a
Bill, which
,ne by lot to join with them in interpreting the will of God.
tion was not brought forward in the shape of
they could discuss in its various stages, and by which
they could establish by law that the ballot should be the
(node of voting for Members of Parliament, but the lion.
Gentleman merely proposed a resolution, declaring that
such a change in the mode of voting
was expedient. Now,
euch a change could only be effected by law, which must be
issented to by Parliament before it could be adopted. I
therefore heldit to be very inexpedient to pass a resolution
condemning the present mode of voting ; for the lion. Gen-
tleman does not propose to introduce a Bill which is to go
through its various stages by which this change is
to be effected.—( Hear, hear.) If we are to have such a
change, let a Bill for that purpose be brought forward
which we can consider, and see how the lion. Member
proposes to effect his object. All that the Honourable Gen-
tleman now did was 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 proceeding not very consistent with the prac-
tice of this House, nor can it be attended with any public ad-
vantage. Certainly the Honourable Member might follow
up his resolution, supposing it to be adopted, by proposing
to introduce a Bill ; but 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 would be a change which would be quite
system a
whichchauge hadto adoptever
tphriesvailed
prin-
ciple of secret voting, which I am satisfied would fail in
effect, because by it you could not
of opinions which characterised the people of this country.—
(Hear, hear.) 21 do not believe that the effect of the adop-
tion of the plan would be attended with any great results,
adopt for I believe that if vouscheme - the and it failed, as I
sin satisfied it would, complaints would continue to be made
that corruption still existed, and intimidation still prevailed,
and, therefore, we should be told that we must go on with
further changes as the ballot had failed, because it had not
been accompanied with other measures.--(Loud cries of
Hear, hear," from Mr. Cobden and other lion. Members.)
The Hon. Gentleman, then, admitted this, and denied the
observation that the ballot would not be sufficient of itself.
_-(hear, hear.) If this is the case, I think that it
would be far better at once to proceed to such a pro-
position as had been made by the Honourable Member
for Montrose.—(Hear, hear.) I believe the Hon. Member
was found fault with on a former occasioa when he
brought forward his motion, and was told he would have
tied a better chance of success if he had confined himself to
one proposition instead of asking for universal suffrage, the
lessening the duration of Parliaments, electoral districts, and
vote by ballot. Whether that proposition was wise or un-
wise I will not stop to consider, but at any rate we had then
the whole scheme before us.—(Hear, hear.) It is now con-
fessed—and I would beg Hon. Members who intend only to
vote for this change will so reflect on it—it is now avowed
openly that this change alone would not produce a perma-
nent and beneficial improvement, but that it must be re-
garded only as a part of other changes.—(Hear, hear.)
With these observations, I shall warn the House not to
adopt this proposal for secret voting ; and, above all, after
the avowal which we have heard, I certainly shall. vote
against it.—(Cheers.;