The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-09 00:00:00

DUTY.

Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR, in asking leave to
re-introduce a Bill for the repeal of the attorneys and
solicitors' annual certificate duty, said the grounds on
which he did so was that this duty was partial, unjust, and
oppressive. On the last occasion when he brought this
subject under the attention of the House, no less than
259 Members voted in favour of the repeal to 224
against it, thus giving a majority in support of the prin-
ciple which he advocated. If the Chancellor of the
Exchequer would promise to agree to the repeal of the
tax next session, in the event of the income-tax
being renewed, and no;unforeseen circumstances arising
in the country, he would be content with simply laying
the Bill on the table; but he should feel compelled to
press his motion if the Right Hon. Gentleman could not
give him such an undertaking.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
would bo most happy to accede to every proposition for
the repeal of taxes, provided he could consistently do so,
but if further reductions of taxation were made under
existing circumstances he knew not how the business
of the country could be carried on. Feeling it neces-
sary to stand by his Budget, he must oppose the mo-
tion, which he hoped would not receive the support of
the House.

Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided,_ when there appeared—

For the motion
Against it
Majority against Ministers ... —3O
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.
THE BALLOT.

... 162
... 132

Mr. H. BERKELEY, in moving for leave to bring in
a Bill " for the protection of Parliamentary electors of
Great Britain and Ireland by taking their votes by
ballot," observed that they were on the eve of a general
election, when the people would require against political
bullies the protection of the ballot; for the landucracy
and aristocratical bodies were about to be arrayed
against popular rights. No plan of Parliamentary re-
form could give satisfaction without the ballot, for with-
out it the popular desires always ran the risk of being
nullified. The Noble Lord, in refusing to admit the ballot
amongst his proposed reforms, would by extending the
franchise only extend the area of intimidation. In dis-
cussing this question he could not avoid remarking that
he and those who were in favour of the ballot had torn

the last rag of reason from the shoulders of its opponents,
and had paced them as indecent pictures of national
obstructions.—(Laughter.) The Noble Lord opposed
the ballot because ho feared a change. Did then that
from which he feared a change work well? Did that
system work well which deterred one-third of the elec-
tors from recording their votes? Did that system work
well which gave to forty-eight peers and seventeen Mem-
bers of Parliament the means of returning ninety-eight
Members of that House by direct unconstitutional interfe-
rence? Did that system work well which converted their
agricultural voters into electoral flocks of sheep? The fact.
was the entire system was a great lie, for it compli-
mented men upon their liberty when it rendered them
slaves.—(Hear.) But, even it he were to admit that the
system worked well, then it must be allowed that it was
a good end attained by bad means.—(Hear.) The Se-
cretary for the Home Department had ceased to support
the ballot on the ground that there had been a great im-
provement in political morality. Where were the illus-
trations of that improvement? Were they to be found
in the Aylesbury "man in the moon," in the St. Alban's
" bell metal," in the drenching the electors with
"whisky" in the Falkirk burghs?—(Hear, hear.) On
Christmas-eve, of all other periods in the year, the St.
Alban'a election commenced; and the Times' reporter
gave a graphic description of the proceedings. He said
that the scene which the town presented throughout the
entire day was anything bat that which would lead per-
sons to suppoee that Father Mathew's disciples were
numerous there; that the sights in the principal streets
were absolutely disgusting—drunken men and women
staggering about, or lying in such curious places as ine-
briety alone selected. It appeared by the same report
that after the election was over, both candidates ad-
dressed the people. Mr. 8011, in his speech, told the
drunken mob that they Lad greatly and gloriously
distinguished themselved.—(Laughter.) Mr. Carden,
on the other band, asserted that in his defeat he bad

achieved a victory; that he was told if he had put the
bribery oath to every elector he would have won his
seat; but that he refused to do so, because he knew
that the man who had taken a bribe would not hesitate

to swear that which was false. It further appeared
that when the bribery oath was read on one oc-
casion there it was received with shouts of laughter
and derision, - and was looked upon by the immaculate
electors there as a very good joke. He knew that by the
ballot they could not prevent a man purchasing a vote,
but they could prevent him knowing whether the elector
had voted for the party that had bribed him. By the
operation of the ballot they cast into the shade four dis-
tinct events. Firstly. Whether the bribed elector voted
for the party who had paid him. Secondly. Whether
the elector that was bribed did not vote for the other
party. Thirdly. Whether the purchased elector did not
split his vote. Fourthly. Whether the elector had voted
at all. With such an uncertainty what party would bribe
at an election? He had taken the opinion of many
agents who had been accustomed to conduct elections,
and they had all concurred in saying that intimidation
would be completely done away with by the ballot, and
that they believed that the ballot would be, generally
speaking, a complete protection against the system of '
bribery. Intimidation contained the principle of bribery
in its worst form. It was practised in the shape of ex-
clusive dealing, withdrawal of custom, ejectment of
tenants, and that inquisitorial search into the lives and
finances of individual voters. These were all used oc-
casionally to prevent the party from voting in the way
he wished. He had before him a return of the poll at
the last Bath election, and in connexion with this sub-
ject he would remind the House that the Hon. Member
for Birmingham had told them that in the last elec
tion for that town at least 1,000 men had absented them-
selves from voting in consequence of intimidation. He
(Mr. Berkeley) wrote to a friend in Bath requesting him
to send him an analysis of the voting there. In the re-
ply which he received the writer said he could quote a
few instances of direct intimidation, but they were the
exception and not the rule. On the registry there ap-
peared to be 3,130 electors, of whom only 2,150 went to
the poll-1,110 polled for Captain Scobell, and 1,041 for
Mr. Sutcliffe. There were 449 electors who had not
voted at the election, and the reason given by them for
not doing so was, that they wished to vote for Captain
Scobell, but they knew that if they had done so their
ruin would inevitably follow, for they would be com-
pelled to shut up their shops. Tho greatest boon that
they could confer upon the tenant-farmers would be to
give them the protection of the ballot. It would be
better upon great estates to allow a paper to be signed
by the different voters at the time of an election, with
the name of the candidate for whom they were compelled
to vote, rather than oblige them to travel to the next
market town for the purpose of telling a lie.—(Laugh-
ter.) He was deeply interested for the tenant-farmers,
and although be had felt it to be his duty to object to
them as soldiers solely on the ground of their incompe-
tency—(Much laughter)—he would b© only doing them
justice in declaring that there were not a better drilled
or a more obedient body of electors in Europe. The
farmer might refuse to go out to fight, but he dared not
refuse to vote upon pain of immediate condign punish-
ment. The evidence taken before the Committee of
1835 ought to form the fonndation for a legislative
measure upon this subject. That state of tyranny and
slavery which was proved to exist in 1835 continued to
flourish in the country as generally as ever. The farmers
were now murmuring at high rents and low prices, and
they were beginning to think that they were not
thoroughly represented in that House. The last South
Nottinghamshire election afforded a strong example of
this fact. The statement to which he was about to refer
was sufficient to show the abject condition of the tenan-
try upon the estates in that part of the country. He
would select the Times' report of the proceedings at that
election, because in the first place their reports were
generally very correct and admirably well written, and
in the second place, because that paper had manifested a
bias against the cause which he was then advocating.
The report stated that this was one of the most aristo-
cratic counties in England, and the landlords to a man
were banded together to support their own nominee,
who was a scion of one of the largest landed proprietors
in the kingdom. That this nobleman thus supported
should be defeated by a plain country gentle-
man—a retired solicitor with scarcely one acre
of land of his own—appeared most marvellous. It could
only be accounted for by the fact that the losses which
were endured by the occupiers of land during the last
two years had rendered them indifferent as to whether
they would be expelled their homesteads or not. There
was an admission on the part of the Times.— (Hear,
hear.) The article further stated that many who had
voted for Lord Newark did so with extreme reluctance.
In some cases the farmers were dragged from their
hiding-places in some hay or straw ricks. They were
taken to the poll and there forced to vote against
their
will. In many instances the answer given to the ques-
tion "for whom do you vote-" was, " for Lerd Newark,
I suppose;" the unwilling voter looking et the same
time into the landlord's face fur a nod of assent.—(Hear,
hear.) After hearing this tale of humiliation and de-
gradation of the tenant-farmers as described by the
Times, he hoped he would be permitted to apostrophise
that great organ in these words, 0 tempura, 0 mores.—
(Laughter.) In the Bingham
which had the
paper) there was a clever trick playeddistrict (continued that
effect of securing some votes for Mr. Barrow. Bills
were posted in every village in the neighbourhood, pur-
porting to come from a nobleman that was accused of
coercing his tenants in favour of Lord Newark. Lord
Chesterfield announces to his tenantry that he takes no
part in this contest, and permits them to exercise their
franchise in whatever way they were inclined." He (Mr.
Berkeley) asked the House if this miserable forgery
could have the effect of carrying these votes, what effect
did they think that the ballot would have?—(Hear.) The
sessional order against the interference of Peers at elec-
tions was a mere mockery. Far better would it be to
take the franchise altogether from the tenant-farmers,
than to subject them to such a state of things as then
existed. At one time were the landlords leading on
their tenants to the accompaniment of a band that played
.‘ See the conquering Hero comes." At another, ferret-
ting them out of their hiding places behind some hey
or straw ricks for the purpose of compelling them to
vote against their conscience at an election. Oh! for
the pencil of Hogarth, or the stereotype of Punch to
sketch such scenes as these.—(Laughter.) Oh! for the
glorious yeomanry of England.—(Renewed laughter.)
Future ages will wonder at reading that such things had
really existed in the 19th century. In the county of
Gloucester there resides a gentleman with a difficult
same. Apr fear he would be unlined of giving a handle

to his nctle, he would spelt it to the House. The gen-
tieman's name was liandcl Co:; sham. It appeared that
ho was a warm advocate of the defeated candidate at

the last ekction. He had, however, lltely joithd a
Total Abstinence Society, and at a meeting held in
Bristol on the 10th of February last it was stated in a
report which appeared in the Bristol Mercury, that
this gentleman had made a speech which yeas remark-
able for good sense, moral courage, and a penitential
tone. Ile said that many political as welt as other

crimes were connected with - the use of strong drink
—he had a grew; deal to do with the last West
Gloucestershire election, but that he repented of it
new, and ever should repent of it—that the drinking at
that election was enough to corrupt all England, but
more particularly the county of Gloucester. The rea-
son why they had not better men to represent them was
because the drinking was so extensive. The best men
could not come forward under such circumstances; while
those who were successful at the election would take
very good care to make the electors pay afterwards for
the expense they were put to on their account during the
contest. Such were the reported opiaiuns of Mr. Handel
Cossham. Ho (Hr. Berkeley) found that the same sen-
timents were uttered by old Daniel Defoe. The coinci-
dence was somewhat remarkable. In 1708 Defoe pub-
lished a review, in which he L.,slied the electoral system
of that day. Mr. Ward had quoted with good effect
from this work, when he had brought this question in
1842 before the House. In 1710, about a year after the
publication of this review, a Bill to give the electors the
protection of the ballot had passed through the House
of Commons, but was rejected by the House of Lords.
The House of Lords of that day very much resembled
the House of Lords of the present day. They still
held in their grasp the constituencies of the country, and
they knew that they must relax their grasp the mo-
ment that the ballot was adopted by Parliament. Defoe
followed this work up by the puplication, in 1710.
of another, entitled " Thoughts on Pub:ic Spirit."
The coincidence between Daniel Defoe and Handel
Cossham was here most remarkable. Cossham, for in-
stance, strongly deprecates the political evils arising
from the use of strong drink, and has given penitential
testimony of the effects. Defoe said that the frequent
orders of the House as to treating electors to strong
drink, and as to bribery and corruption, had little effect,
for moat people thought that they might be easily
evaded; that it was a great fault with electors to sell
their votes at elections for a small sum, or what was
worse, for a pot of ale.—(Laughter.) Mr. Cossham
again said he believed that the great expense incurred
by the candidates at these elections they would contrive
to pay themselves back when they gut into. Parliament.
Detoe said that many went to great expense in order to
be returned for some pitiful borough; but it must not
be supposed that they were influenced by public spirit;
they seek for the salaries of office, and show a strong
inclination for its perquisites also. As a last word be-
lore he sat down, he (Mr. Berkley) would appeal to the
Noble Lord at the head of the Government who stood

pledged to further reforms, not to turn aside from the
consideration of this great question. Mr. Grote, when
speaking in support of the Reform Bill, said that the pro-
tection of the ballot was necessary. He did not know
how many Hon. Members would vote for his present mo-
tion, but he did know that there were 150 Gentlemen in
that House who concurred in the opinions expressed by
Mr. Grote. Amongst them were the names of those who
bore great names, and who were remarkable for their
talent and wisdom, and with whom the Noble Lord was
in daily communication. He found there the revered
name of Remitly, a gentleman in whom were combined
high position, great talent, and unbounded popularity.—
(Hear, hear.) He was also supported by her Majesty's
Attorney-General, than whom there was no ono better
pequainted with the electoral system and working.
There was also the Solicitor-General, whose sound judg-
ment and eloquence went hand in hand, and whose bril-
tient defence of this question could not easily be for-
gotten when it was pressed through that Route. He was
also strong in ancient legal authority. Chief justice
Holt said he considered it a great privilege to have the
power of electing those who were required to
make laws for the country. Sir W. Blackstone
laid it down that the House of Commons
should be elected by the people to make laws
for the people, and to counteract the encroaching ten-
dency of the laws sometimes framed by the House of
Lords. He asked the Noble Lord, in all sincerity, to
reconsider this question for the sake of the people of
England. If the Noble Lord would give them any pledge
upon the subject, he would cheerfully withdraw the pre-
sent motion. If, however, he declined to give any such
pledge, he had only to ask the leave of the House to
bring in a Bill to give protection to the electors of Great
Britain and Ireland, in the discharge of a solemn duty,
an important right, and a great privilege.—(Cheers.)
Mr. ELLIS bore testimony to the extreme intimida-
tion and coercion which were exercised upon all descrip-
tions of voters at elections. Both sides of the House
were equally chargeable with this practice. He believed
it was impossible to adopt any sound system of election
without the shield of the ballot. In the name, then, of
the people of England, he asked the Noble Lord to ad-
vance, by his great power and wisdom, the important
question which had been just submitted to their consi-
deration.—(Hear.) He asked the Noble Lord to recon-
sider the question, and give the constituencies the shield
of the ballot, of which Gentlemen invariably availed
themselves in their clubs, and in every situation in which
they themselves were called to vote. But the present
system could not last much longer. The day was
coming when tho people would demand the ballot, and
whoever happened to be sitting on the bench now occu-
pied by the Noble Lord at the head of the Government
would be compelled to grant it. He therefore urged the
Noble Lord nod the House to take this time of peace
and tranquillity for the extension of the franchise and
granting the shield of the ballot.
Mr. HUM +' could not see how any man professing a
desire to promote equal and practical reform could
shrink from giving his support to the motion, though it
would only secure part of the rights to which the
people were entitled. He wanted the Noble Lord at
the head of the Government, who had formerly done
so much to enlighten them on the subject of the British
Constitution, to go back to those days, and act as be
would have acted then if he had had the power. In
1832, as soon as power was placed in his hands, he,
as the organ of a Liberal Administration, brought for-
ward the Reform Bill; and he asked nothing more of
him than the fulfilment of the views which he then ex-
pressed. He said the time was come when the people
would .no longer permit Peers to nominate their repre-
sentatives, and expressed a hope that no constituency
would be left with fewer than 300 voters. Since the
passing of the Reform Act, many had asked what advan-
tage had been derived from it? Now, though he con-
' fessed that it had not realised all the sanguine hopes
which he had entertained of its results, it had un-
doubtedly produced incalculable benefits. No man could
tell what might have happened in times of excitement
if the old system bad been persisted in, though some
' idea might be formed from what had passed elsewhere.
The Noble Lord, in proposing the Reform Bill, re-
served the questions of the ballot and triennial Parlia-
ments, stating that he was anxious to try the effect
of the reforms which he then proposed, and added,
that if these should be found incomplete, it would
be then time enough to bring forward those
questions. The advantages anticipated by the
' Noble Lord from the Reform Bill had not been realised,
and he ought therefore to assist, or rather to be foremost
in supporting the motion. For his own part, he con-
fessed he should net be satisfied with that single reform ,
for he thought there was another more important still,
the extension of the franchise. He maintained, on the
authority of the greatest constitutional lawyers, that
every man who paid taxes and performed the duties
which the State required from him as an Englishman
was entitled to a voice in the election of representatives
to Parliament. Be was not wedded to any particular
mode but he certainly held the
protection
tobehtessential. He also thought
the duration
co the its.iParliamentsought to be shortened to
three years. These reforms he advocated on economical
principles. He was old enough to recollect the struggles
to obtain Parliamentary reform before the French war,
du o
raftei x o
and what was the result of the efforts then made by the
landed proprietors and the aristocracy to check the pro-
gress of reform? An addition of 600,000,0001. to our
' debt, and 21,000,0001. of charge- He warned them to
profit by sad experience, and be called on the Noble Lord
at the head of the Government to recur to the Whig
principles of former days- Would peace and content-
ment continue to prevail if they persisted in denying to
six out of every seven males a voice in the election of
their representatives? Would England, who formerly
had been at the top of the ladder in Europe as regarded her
representative system, consent to remain at the bottom?
Would the artisans of this country consent to remain
behind the artisans of every other country, excep
Russia? He, therefore, counselled the Noble Lord, whilst
employment gave wages and wages contentment, to come
forward and grant the boon. Let him not suppose that
the people were ignorant of their rights, nor was there
the least fear that those rights would be abused. New
circumstances had occurred since the question was last
under their consideration. The Noble Lord at the head
of the Government had declared that every colony was
entitled to all the advantages of British institutions and
a responsible government, and the electoral system in
Ireland had undergone revision. But still he found by
a Parliamentary paper that there were places, such as
Colne and Reigate, and others, in which there were not
more than from 150 to 250 electors. Could this system
be maintained? He called on the Noble Lord to redeem
his pledge. Under the present system five metropolitan
boroughs, with 89,000 electors, return d the same num-
ber of representatives as 12 boroughs with 3,509 electors.
Unless the ballot formed part of the Noble Lord's re-
forms, they would not give satisfaction.—(Hear, hear.)
Why were the benches opposite so empty? Because the
Members who ought to have filled them disregarded the
voice of the people. He hoped the fact would not be lost
upon them. He had given notice of an amendment, but
being anxious that there should be no mistake as to the
division, and wishing to remove ad excuse for not coming
to a decided vote, he would withdraw it. They had been
too long passive. The Noble Lord at the head of the
Government had allowed the powerful reform party, of
which he was the head, to linger from year to year, till
it was almost destroyed. It was now in his power to
restore, reanimate, and unite it; and in making the
effort he might rely on the support of the great body
of the people.—(Hear, hear.)
Captain SCOBELL said ho had entered the House
with no intention of addressing it on the present mo-
tion; but as the city which he had the honour to repre-
sent had been so largely referred to, and a numerously-
signed petition had been presented from that quarter, he
felt that ho could not give a silent vete upon the ques-
tion. It was due to himself to state that, in his recent
election, he had declined to canvass the constituency,
, thinking that proceeding not only unnecessary but de-
grading.—(Hear, hear.) Ho had taken the more open
course of meeting his constituents in their several wards.
He had thus an opportunity of knowing that great inti-
midation had been resorted to. He might be asked, then,
whether be was a convert to the ballot? ge confessed