The Sun.
London, England, 1833-01-07 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLiC

We suppose that the Times
those contemporaries " who hay'
as well as their judgment" on
ballot. Haweier this may be,
never led us to omit either distin,
own opinions, or distinct answers
of the Times. We have only to bi
will be equally distinct in their grounds of defence
and attack, and we promise them that we shall not
be the parties to exchange specific reasonings for
vague and irrevelant acrimony. Their article of
Saturday again talks of " the present frank and
manly mode of election," as contrasted with the
" mystification and duplicity" of the ballot. We
deny altogether that the present mode of election
is frank and manly. We assert that it is as much
the reverse of frank and manly as a system of elec-
tion can be. The Times itself, in the article of De-
cember 27, admitted that at the recent elections
thousands- of voters had been compelled to vote in
favour of candidates whom they cons&en-
tiously disapproved. Here is " frankness and
manliness" displayed in an exquisite fashion,
and with a blessed effect ! In which part
of the business shall we look for these virtues ?
the conduct of the landlord, when he frightens his
tenant into an immoral promise ? In that of the
tenant, when he commits the first sin of making
the promise, or the second sin of fulfilling it
There is nothing more flagrant than the disregard
of veracity which taints all these compulsory pro-
mises—chiefly on the part of the landlord, who is
the prime author and beginner of the deception„
Not only is open voting not frank and manly—it is
in the highest degree unfavourable and discouraging
to these valuable qualities. For who is it that
thrives under open voting ? The man who makes
his vote subservient to his worldly dealings—who
devours his conscientious scruples, and contradicts
his political principles without resistance or remorse.
And who is it that suffers under open voting? The
man with whom veracity is an inviolable duty, and
who will not falsify his political principles,
though they led him to martyrdom. Open
voting places the perfectly " frank and manly"
elector under the most trying arid calamitous
circumstances ; while the supple elector is under no
difficulties at all, and may even make his vote a
means of advancing his interest. We should be
glad to know whether those three poor carpenters
at Oxford, whom the Times announced as having
been turned off by their employer for refusing to
vote for Sir Charles Wetherell, have discovered that
open voting affords either recompense or encourage-
ment to " frankness and manliness ?" The expres-
sion " open voting" in this case is misleading : it
calls up ideas directly the reverse of what the
reality of the case presents—ideas of truth-telling,
and undisguised statement of the genuine thoughts.
We are told that it is a very good thing that a man
should "speak out his mind openly" at the poll
The voter may, indeed, speak openly, but we con-
tend that he speaks out not his own mind, but the
mind of some oilier person, whom he does no: choose
to offend. A more exact epithet on this occasion
would be " unprotected voting." But if men tail,
prefer to say open, let them recollect that it is only
open-mouthed voting, not open-minded voting. The
Times persists in ascribing " mystification and dripli-
eity"to the ballot. We are perfectly ready to join issue
with them on this point, as well as on the " frank-

ness and manliness" which so much delights them
in unprotected voting. For every lie which the
ballot will introduce, we engage to show them a
worse lie which it excludes. And we are prepared
to prove that its ultimate tendency is to cut up by
the roots all those compulsory promises, from whicu
alone !Trig arises. If the Times can demonstrate
the contrary, let them do so; if they cannot, let
them cease to assume it in the epithets which they
apply to the ballot. One argument in the Times of
Saturday certainly does astound us. They argue
that the ballot cannot be an effectual provision for
secrecy of voting, because no former Statesman has
ever yet adverted to it as a check to bribery ! Thi
argument will have some force, when it shall be
shown that any English Statesman ever seriously
cared either to prevent bribery, or to procure an easy
tad undisturbed vent for the consciences of voters.
Perhaps the Timex will reperuse some of those admi-
rable articles on the Reform Bill which appeared in
:heir columns in the spring of 1831, when the interests
and hope of the Government coincided with those
of the people. They will there see the dark arid
vicious workings of the unreformed representative
system laid bare with a master hand ; they will see
he reason why English Statesmen, either holding
power or hoping to hold power, by means of that
system, have been smitten universally with that in-
curable squint, which disqualified them from looking
•tra.ghtly or intently on the public happiness; they
will see why even the most keen-sighted of these
Statesmen have preferred sham and puppet voting
o real and free-will voting. They will see why we
have had gagging Bills, arid an insupportable burden
of national debt and profligate legislation of every
description; and why we have not had, not so much
as in design, either good or cheap law, national edu-
cation, or guarantees for the genuine expression of
the electoral conscience. The same men do not
deal out blows with one hand, and blessings with
,he other. We thank the Timex, however, for has'.
ng felt so strongly the evil of intimidation, as to
propose a remedy of their own, wive!' they tell us
"is worth a thousand ballots." We approve of
their proposal of prohibiting intimidation by law,
aid of exacting a declaration from every Representa-
tive that no such practice has been resorted to w,th
his knowledge for the purpose of promoting his
election. This will affix the stamp of national
odium on such iniquities; but it still do no
.nore. For as to punishing the man of power,
either for illegal threats, or for illegal vote,
engeance—we maintain that this will not be
possible in one case out of ten thousand.
How will you discover, with anything like legal cer-
:ainty, whether a man has or has not had just cause
to dismiss his tenant—to turn away his clerk or his
journeyman—to withdraw his hairless from its
tradesmen ? You may forbid threats ; but the con-
sequences of the superior's displeasure are well on.
.t,..accad by the dependent wi,hout any threats--,-
intelliguntur,magis quam audiuntur. The additional
disrepute arising from pronounced illegality may
nake powerful men a little more circumspect in
their means of compassing coercion; but the real
,acility for accomplishing it, the real motive for at-
iempting it, and the real necessity for submission to
it on the part of the tenant, wilt remain altogether
unabated, in spite of the cobweb enactments sug-
gested by our contemporary. Can the like imp( a
ertce be predic,ed of the ballot ? There are many
who say so; but there are few who really believe it,
aid there is not a man among those few who can
,rove it. We said before, and we now say again,
hat the invisible signs of thought are just as lIIUCII
tut of the reach of coercion as thought itself: that
voter alone in the balloting closet can neither
dend any one, nor propitiate any one by an unseen
twist of his hand; and that in the absence of all
Itch counter-inducements, he will vote according to
tne genuine dictates of his conscience. It is by the
allot, arid by the ballot alone, that the vote of an
-tlector can be rendered self-determined and unas-
ailable.—Morning Chronicle.

We consider the selection of a Speaker by the
first Reformed Cabinet (and the Huuse of Com-
:nons, not the Cabinet, possesses the right of elec.
rion, and ought to exercise it) as of paramount p-
oliced importance. Tne assembling of our newly.
,nmstituted and really-elected Legislature forms the
nost splendid epoch in the existence of the nation.
It is the great moral triumph of Public opinion
me victory of enlightened intellect over ungifted
.vealth—the supremacy of mind ever mutter. file
hoice of theill 1 who is to preside oker ihe
nomen ous discussions involving our iloineilic wad
foreign policy is now become aot:inodhjheacstbooof
lented sol.citucle. We alluded on Sa.ufday ri,e
-u-amours abroad respecting Atioi,tor4l
Benson this-subject.h