The Sun.
London, England, 1833-01-18 00:00:00

and Catholic Princes carried religious per-
secution two centuries ago—so that no Whig
landlord had on his estate any but Whig
tenants, nor Tory landlord any but Tory tenants.
Let the landlords attempt this wholesale ejec-
tion if they can or dare. They have not done
it yet ; and until they actually do, we have one
chance still left of struggling for the liberty of
conscientious voting. The case in England
now is, that we have a great many tenants, who
are electors, and who differ in political senti-
ments from their landlords. With these men
the secrecy of the vote makes all the difference,
whether they vote according to their own pre-
ference, or according to that of their landlord.
Nothing can frustrate the efficacy of the ballot,
so far as voting is concerned, while this state of
things continues. Whether the landlord knows
their political sentiments or not, he cannot bring
any compulsory motive to bear upon them in
secret ; he cannot put a lie into their mouths,
while they are alone in the balloting closet. The
fallacy of the Times consists in supposing that the
efficacy of the ballot depends upon a man's keeping
his political sentiments unknown to his terrifier.
We repeat that it depends on no such condition. It
protects his vote just as inexpugnably,whether his
sentiments are known or not. It bars the landlord
from injuring him or sparing him, according to the
way in which he votes. We deny altogether
that the ballot does " lead to habitual secrecy
in matters of opinion, and that it is a dead letter
else." A moment before, the Times had them-
selves observed, that habitual secrecy of opinion
was impracticable. Does the ballot lead to this
consequence in France, where, according to the
Times themselves, it is the " sole guarantee of
electoral independence ?" A dependant who
differs from his superior is condemned of neces-
sity to great reserve in the expression of his
opinions, whether he votes openly or secretly ;
in the one case as well as in the other. He may
be enabled to vote freely by means of the ballot :
and there is no necessity that he should ever speak
what he does not think ; but reserve in speaking
what he does think is to a great degree unavoid-
able. As we deny that the ballot will produce
any greater secrecy of sentiment than now pre-
vails, so we also deny its alleged effects in
" deadening all known public opinion." We
maintain that the real public opinion will be of
much greater potency under the ballot than it is
at present. The grand act and manifestation of
public opinion is in the election of representa-
tives ; and the evil of which we complain is,
that unprotected voting compels a large pro.
portion of the constituency to vote contrary to
their opinions. To this extent it does not merely
deaden, but positively reverses and falsifies, the
working of public opinion ; so that there might
almost as well be no public opinion at all. The
correspondent of the Times is of opinion that an
elector ought to exercise his franchise honestly
under all the risks of open voting—that if he can-
not do so, he is unworthy to have it. We agree
that he ought to do so. So ought a man to die at
the stake, sooner than recant his religious opinions ;
so ought he, like Regulus, to surrender himself
to excruciating torments, rather than forfeit
his word. We fully acknowledge this obliga-
tion, though we are not quite so prodi-
gal as this magnanimous writer, of the epithet
fool, coward, and traitor, if we do not find in
every bosom the constancy of a martyr. The
simple question which we ask is, Cannot the
Legislature protect the voter against any such
risks ? and, if they can, ought they not to pro-
tect him ? We affirm that they both can do it
and ought to do it. The assertion, that no
man is worthy of the elective franchise who is
not prepared to exercise it honestly at all ha-
zards, is utterly inadmissible. Every man is
worthy of the franchise who is capable of form-
ing a judgment on public men and public mea-
sures. It is for the Legislature to provide
means for receiving his judgment without ex-
posing him to loss or suffering. The corres-
pondent of the Times says—

" An elector's first, last, and only duty, is to give his
vote honestly. The duty of the public is to see that each
elector does give his vote honestly; if he does, to guard
him against all oppression or evil consequences wbatever :
if he does not, to inflict its just indignation on him and
all his partners in iniquity. Disable the public from form•
ing this opinion of the elector's conduct, and you remove
the very fly-wheel of the whole machinery."

The first sentence of this paragraph is as true
and important as all the rest is false and futile.
To vote honestly is the elector's " first, last, and
only duty ;" and it is for this precise reason that
we insist on placing him alone in the balloting-
closet, where neither temptations nor threats can
reach him, and where he will be sure to vote
honestly of his own accord. The ballot insures
the performance of this " first, last, and only
duty of an elector with unerring exactness.
Rejecting this effectual security, and letting in
all the threats and terrors of open voting, this
writer professes to neutralise and counterwork
them by a phantom of his own—responsibility
to the public, and protection by the public. We
maintain that the public can neither afford the
protection nor exercise the power herein implied.
Is it meant that James Swann and the three la-
bourers at Oxford, and the thousand other
sufferers by electoral tyranny, shall all receive
pecuniary compensation out of the public purse?
The very idea is preposterous ; though it is rare
indeed to see public money bestowed upon such
virtuous individuals. Or arc we to understand
that the sympathy of the public will compensate
an honest voter for ejectment and ruin ? He
would receive much keener sympathy if his
house were burnt down, or if' he lost his only
sons, but does any reasonable man accept this
expression of sympathy as a compensation for
such misfortunes ? Sympathy will alleviate
calamity, but it will do nothing more: and how
can the public find means even to sympathise
with one-fiftieth part of the unblazoned victims
of electoral tyranny throughout England and
Scotland ?

" Omnes illacrymabiles
" Urgentur, ignotique, long a nock, carent Dela vale sacro !"

If the public cannot extend this needful pro-
tection, much less can they exercise the super-
vision, or enforce the responsibility, under which
the voter is supposed to act. The public are to
see (it is pretended) that every elector gives an
honest vote—to watch, not whether he gives a
vote judicious and acceptable in their eyes, but
whether he votes as his own genuine preference
guides him. By what conceivable conjuration
are the public to determine this e To suppose
Chem capable of it, would be to invest them with
attributes nothing short of Omniscience. The
wisdom of a man's vote may be appreciated by
others as well as by himself; the honesty of it
can never be ascertained by any other human
being. Whenever the public do interfere as
judges of the vote of an elector, they always
constitute themselves judges, not of the honesty
of his vote, but of its wisdom and propriety.
They meddle in the contest, not as champions
of honesty in the abstract, but as partisans of a
favourite candidate; those who vote for him,
receive a shout of applause, whatever be the