The Sun.
London, England, 1833-04-26 00:00:00

past four o'clock.
Mr. LEONARD presented a petition from Epping, for
a national system of education to be established for the
poorer classes of the community.
Mr. HUME thought this one of the most important
petitions that could be presented to the House. There
was at present a state of crime and demoralization pre
vailing throughout this country that was appalling to the
least thinking man, and unless some cl exit was put to that
state of things, i❑ a very short time it would be impossible
to say what would become of persons and of property.
If, with a reform of Parliament, the country was not to
have a useful reform, of what use was Parliament
at all ? There was to be no reduction of taxation —no
relief for the press—( Hear)—but 22 millions of money was
to be continued in carrying on a civil and military go-
verntnent —(Hear, hear)—no raslical relief was to be given
all was to be trifling and unimportant.—(Cheers.) Ever.
the reform of the church, was there any thing radical',
beneficial in that?—(Loud cheers.) Quite the reverse.
There was a pretty strong proof given of it at a meeting
in the city last night, where a pretty good index of public
mind could be formed; and the Hon. Member wished
that Ministers could only have been behind the scene at a
meeting to-day which he (Mr. H.) had attended, of 3,000
or 4,000 persons, not of the lower and working classes,
but of respectable householders, assembled together to
petition for the reduction of the hi,use and window taxes.
He would have been glad if Lords Grey or Brougham could
only have witnessed the manner in which-the mention of
their names was received. The people were not to be con-
tinued to be trifled with in the way in which they had been.
AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.
After a few words from Messrs. Dare, O'Connell, Ben-

vesting their money in the public funds, but be left to in-
vest it in whatever way they chose.
Mr. SLANEY disclaimed any intention of proposing
that the individuals in question should not invest their
money as they chose, or should not draw it out when they
liked. The object of his proposition was to give them a
better security than they now enjoyed.
Leave was then given to brine in the Bill.
THE BALLOT.

nett, and Sir M. W. Ridley, and the presentation of peti-
tions by several Hon. Members,
Lord ALTHORP gave no!ice that on Tueiday next,
he would move for the appointment of a Select Comtnittee
to inquire into the present state of aerieulture.—(Hear.)

Mr. PHILPOTTS presented a petition from Glouces-
ter, signed by a number of highly-respectable persons, com-
plaining of the oppression which had been sustained by
many of the electors at the last general election, and pray-
ing that, as the only mode by which that oppression could
be obviated in future, Parliament would enact that the
vote should be taken by way of ballot.
" TO THE HONOURABLE THE COMMONS OF THE
NITED KINGDOM IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBL I).
" THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE UNDER-
SIGNED ELECTORS AND INHABITANTS OF
GLOUCESTER,
Showeth,--That the oppressive practices of many wealthy
and influential persons, resident within this city and in its
neighbourhood, since the general election in December last,
and during a recent contest for a seat in your Hon. House,
compel your petitioners to lay before you a statement of their
grievances, and of their formed opinion, that freedom of elec-
tion in this place, and, as they tear, throughout the country, can
be ensured by no other means than the adoption of the system of
vote by ballot.
" That your petitioners are not insensible to the truth, that if
no other than legitimate influence were exerted, open suffrages
would, as the most manly, be the far preferable mode of exer-
cisin,, the elective franchise. To the desire for change they
have been driven by the acts of men who arrogate to themselves
the right, and usurp the power, of controlling the expression of
public opinion.
" That not only has the intimidation, not unfrequently prac
tised, been resorted to in the inordinate exercise of the rights of
creditors, of landlords, of masters, of Magistrates, of Clergymen,
and of public functionaries, but very many tradesmen, dreading
great pecuniary losses, and, in some instances, even the ruin of
themselves and their families, did not dare, at the recent elec-
tion, to exercise the rights conferred upon iem by the Reform
Act, in defiance of the urgent threats of their richer customers
and the avowed adoption, by the Tory Party, of a system of
dealing exclusively with tradesmen who are accustomed to vote
for a Tory candidate, regardless of the injuries thus inflicted
upon respectable men for no other cause than their acting upon
their own opinions. That this latter species of oppression, as it
cannot constitutionally be encountered by any legal restriction
or penal enactment, is an evil for which your petitioners perceive
no other remedy than the introduction of the ballot
" Though gross bribery has been practised at the recent con-
test, and though the ballot is an undoubted means of preventing
that crime, yet inasmuch as the law in that respect, though not
sufficiently strict, is, when enforced,very penal towards offenders,
your petitioners do not deem it necessary to draw the attention
of your Honourable House more expressly to that subject ; feel-
ing, however, that the poorer classes of the community require
protection against a sort of oppression which cannot be included
within the precise legal definition of any crime.
" Your petitioners humbly pray, that your Honourable House
will be pleased to protect every man in the due exercise of his
constitutional rights, by passing a Bill for taking votes by ballot
at the elections of Members of Parliament for cities and
boroughs."
Mr. GROTE said that be rose to bring before the
House the motion of which he had given notice, respect-
ing the method of taking the votes at elections for Mem-
bers of Parliament. It was his intention to propose that
they be taken secretly instead of openly. He could have
wished that the motion had fallen into hands abler and
more practised in the business of the House than he could
boast of being. But though many Members might be
fount] better qualified to do justice to the question than
himself, there was none who took in it a warmer or a deeper
interest. There were few men who hail more carefully
considered the comparative expediency of open and secret
voting, or who had taken greater pains to understand the
working of the elective franchise under both modifications.
His conviction of the necessity of a secret suffrage, and
of the gross mischiefs inseparable from an open suffrage,
was now of long standing ; and every subsequent reflec-
tion on the matter—all examination into the details of
elections—had tended to confirm and corroborate this opa-
uion. Strongly, however, as he felt the importance of
the change which he was urging, he should scarcely have
been hold enough to insist upon it if it had been anywise
inconsistent or at variance with the provisions of the late
great measure of Reform—a measure to which he could
not allude without his humble tribute of admiration and
gratitude; but it would be in the recollection of the House
that the Noble Lord who introduced the Reform Bill men•
tioned in his opening speech the question of the ballot,
with the particular object of declaring that he pronounced
no opinion upon it, and that it must be left for subse-
quent consideration. He might, however, go a step fur-
ther, and affirm, that since the discussion on the Reform
Bill, the ballot stood upon a ground still more favour-
able than that which it occupied before that period. He
considered the Reform Bill the first approach to a real re-
presentative system. Up to that moment, representative
eovernment in Great Britain and Ireland had been snore
talk and supposition than reality—it had been an irregular
congeries of ancient ceremonies, carrying the symbols, but
not bearing the fruits of popular election.—(Hear.) It
would have been unavailing to propose any better mode of
taking votes, as hen the whole business of voting was
iliu-ory, and when the legitimate purpose of voting was
neither defined nor recognised. But now, thanks to the
R.-form Bill, something like order and principle had been
substituted for this chaos. They knew the end which
t cy had to attain, and they could direct their thoughts
deliberately to the best means of attaining it. The great
decree bad gone forth that nomination was to be alto-
gether extinguished, and representation substituted in its
place. The idea of a sham representation was now
banished amidst the disgraces and mischiefs of the past.
The Ministers of the Crown, in proposing their Reforw
Bill, announced their design of so constituting Otis
Parliament, as that it at length should enjoy, and cork
tnand, and deserve the coati fence of the people. He
honoured and reverenced them for the recognition of that
great and glorious object—he honoured them, no:
only for the recognition of it, but for the mighty
stride which they had made towards its accomplishment_
the utmost, as he believed in his conscience, which it wa
possible for them to do in the situation in which they them
stood. He gladly joined hands with them, and he de-
sired nothing better than the full attainment of the nob!,
purpose which they announced.—( Hear.) Let the Howe
beer upon its front the full mark and impress of the
people's confidence—let it carry in its fabric and mode of
election unequivocal evidence that its Members, collectively
and individually, possessed the confidence of the people ;
let that be assured, and be for one should be amply sail-•
fi,rl.—(Cheers.) It was upon that principle that the
11 iu,e last year recognised their constituent body. They
gave it a new f.rin, they increased it in number, and dis
tributed it into new classes and detachments. They dis-
carded the ancient constituency, because it was not cal
culated to insure a Legislature possessing the confidence
of the people, and they created a new constituency, se-
lected and adapted to that end. He called upon theta
now to complete this work, by reviewing the mode o
taking votes in reference to the same end. He caller
upon them, no less in consistency with their own aim
an i purpose, than with a view to the settlement of a mo-
important subject, to consider whether they were most
likely to obtain a Legislature possessing the full confidence
of the community by taking the votes of electors secretly
or openly ; and more than that, whether the beneficent
purposes of the Reform Pill might not be to a great
degree nullified by an unwise and mischievous way of
collecting the votes. The House were aware that seer t
suffrage was preferred in France, and in '2O out of the 24
States of the Atuericau Union. Open suffrage had been

7"...."..."67
_
i
fgshcruaeiatffsughtire,eu(argsbtecoanttwdhi
mightwea us g teni
mo
an nibtiahnle ma b a
raPnwt_aurtglhitaitwa.imtibei etoshnieodtcutairiair,eyegyt
) 2 C--/:Z/2i 9 //
purposes
hpthilari
yea
practice
ce
elshoyhfiaaunedr:rrdeifbhongeeer
tw:rtepf t
hawriteaewb chow
compatible
/7- -id/2
/ -/ ,=..
/7 /e
_ 7 ' elections of this country; but however well open suf-
frage
ascendancy under which the unreformed Parliament was
V'zee
_ e
, genius , 1
411Pir '.;'4' ' 0. sure method of attaining a House of Commons poseese.
ing the confidence of the people.—(Hear.) He believe d
that the Reform Bill gave them a constituency of about
1,000,000 persons. Wbat would they have said, if
there heaxd been a special clause in the Bill, dividing that
constituency into two classes--voters juris sui, and voters
analogousi.,),o.l7lceiiestdrl
eaet,/iiime,orzeia—ws
iellif-oj uf tlgi o
theirg
own,voters
nadnivoseterrvsiluenvotersg—alvoterscom-
pulsion pulsion to exqress only the will of another.—(Hear, hear.)
He did not as.ert that the ballot, (Erectly and of itself,
would puptcraeaussseeeniodfeltsFoerwaaluhlecrepe:ersecbTuoutteivhoenerywfooounri:pelitical senti-
mentstvould most infallibly put an end to computv7shsooerrythaatnahr
fol-
lowed
the last ten voting.vs eventful
single
Tbeunhtuerytaehceonaufillai.lff a
irs not i
nhtahvaet
country
ng
tort::
during
u theri
ng
proved the years,
it was notorious that the ballot had
sufficient guarantee of elec-
toral independence against all the invasions of an over-
whelmig Government ascendancy. This was a met er
confessed by all parties, friends and enemies; in-
deed, the shameless efforts of the Bourbon Govern-
ment to elude or nullity the ballot, proved suffieiently
how well they knew and felt its influence.—(Hear.)
He did not cite the case of France in proof of
the goodness of the ballot ; but be cited the case most
confidently in proof of its efficacy in ensuring freledom of
voting. He relied fully and surely upon the ballot as a
means of extinguishing and cutting up by the roots all
compulsion over the voter. He relied upon it too, as
going very far to put an end to bribery, much further than
any penal Act could do, while the suffrage continues open;
though he admitted that there was a particular descrip-
tion of bribery—a s .rt of wholesale or collective bribery—
which might still be practised, even under the ballot. A
man might offer to give a considerable sum among the
aggregate of the voters of any given place, conditional
upon his being returned Member. But it was to he re-
collected that this was a transaction not a little hazardous,
and very likely co bring about an exposure.—(Hear,
bear.) The ballot might not render bribery altogether
impracticable; but it will render it much more difficult,
much more complicated, and much more dangerous to the
parties concerned ; and he would remind them, that for
one vote perverted by bribery, there were fifty perverted
by intimidation.—(Hear.) Others again there were who
objected to the ballot, not ou the score of inefficacy, but
from pure dislike of secrecy in any ease. It led, they
said, to mendacity and promise-breaking; for a dependant
under the ballet, after having promised a vote to his supe-
rior, might break his promise with impunity, and vote
against him at the poll. Now, it was very true that ato
nant voting by ballot might thus break his promise,
but why should they expect that he would do so?
There could be but one answer—because the promise
bad been given contrary to his genuine and conscien-
tious feeling.—(Blear, hear, Lear.) In no other case
could he be tempted to violate it ; for if it were given of
his own heart and freewill, and coincident with his own
conscience, he would feel pleasure in performing it and
pain in violating it, whether the performance were open
or secret —(Hear, hear.) The mere supposition, there-
fore, that a voter would be disposed to break his promise,
implied that he had promised contrary to his inclinations,
and therefore by some extraneous force or compulsion. It:
was from these compulsory promises alone that the chance
of promise-breaking arose.—(Hear, hear.) Let any man
just contemplate the nature of this compulsory promise,
and mark what was involved in it. Preferring Ain his
conscience, the elector has been constrained to promise to
vote for B; he had promised to give an insincere and dis-
honest vote—to tell a known and deliberate lie at the poll.
A promise like this involved the necessity of lying one
way or the other—the voter must, at all events, play the
liar, either to his country if be executed the promise, or
to his superior if he broke it,. Compere these two lies,
between which the voter in this dilemma had to choose.
What falsehood could be worse than a dishonest vote at
the poll? Was it not a falsehood told under the most
awful circumstances—a falsehood told in express violation
of a solemn trust towards his country, which called upon,
him to speak the truth—a falsehood which went to ob-
trude upon his country a bastard and suppositieus :eine-
sentative, and to vitiate the whole fabric and spirit of the
Legislative Assembly ? What comments would be made
upon a juror a ho delivered a dishonest verdict, or upon a
witness who knowingly deposes an untruth in open
Court ? You treated them as vile and dishonoured out-
casts, and you treated them justly. Yet note well, that
whatever be the hurt that these judicial trust breakers did
in poisoning the fountains of justice, an equivalent hurt
was done by the electoral trust-braker in poisoning the
fountains of Legislation.—t Hear.) He hail taken pains
to present to the House forcibly this horn of the dilemma,
because gentlemen were very fond of dwelling exclusively
on the other. They talked as if the only lie wbic; a
voter could tell, arid the only wrong which Le could
commit, were the breaking faith with one who bad ex-
torted from him a dishonest promise. He (Mr. Grote)
said that there was another and a greener wrong which he
might commit—the breaking of faith with the public—
(Cheers)—and he said further, that one of the two he
must infallibly commit if he bad given such a promise. It;
the eyes of the House particularly, as the recogniee.
guardians of the public interest, the performance of a public•
trust must be the first of all things to be enforce). 31
the person to whom trust was confided pledged himself It
some private covenant to violate it, they mostcompel him
to forfeit his covenant and execute his trust. They would,
condemn and censure him for entering into so crirained ..
covenant ; but they would not allow hien to make the ire,
morality of the covenant an excuse for the still water
immorality of violating the trust.—(Cheers,) He was
almost ashamed to load them with illustrations of a prig
ciple so obvious. But suppose be was juror in a particular
cause, and pledged himself beforehand to find for the plain-
tiff, right or wrong ; or suppose he was subpoenaed as,
witness, and pledged himself to depose to false statemet*
in Court, because he had given this iniquitous promise war,
he to be held warranted in committing the iniquitous act
to which it pledged him ? Not if he had promised it evet
so frequently and solemnly. To promise to do wrong was
in itself a heavy sin; but to do actual wrong in execution
of that promise was a second sin still heavier than the first,
and instead of clearing the conscience of the promiser,
imprinted upon it a still deeper stain of guilt.—(Hear.)
So it was with the electoral trust ; a voter was criminal
when he promised to violate it, but be was still moeo,
criminal when he violated it in fact,. pursuant te, thee
promise. He would, in illustration of this truth, Bead *
:ew lines out of Shakespeare, whose word, will 'tick to
their memory much more tenaciously thaq his i—
" It is great sin to swear unto a eii, ;
But greater sin to keep a 4intul oath.
Who can be bound by any solemn vow
To do a murderous deed, to rob a wan,
To force a spotless virgin's chastity,
To reave the orphan of his psit,t,"„y,
But that he was bo'end by '...;:eorrl
hisecmu sntwoomr:u'ndg. tight;
:,
These linesTA c:
were)d.rihavengn ot nh
loee sow( itit widow
va
rc
eft
from
in
forcible. He prized as
highly as any men the sanctity of a promise ; but it was
oreposterous to ttcat promise-keeping as if it were the
eole and single duty which a man had to perform. It was
emongst a number of other duties; and whenever any
tigher and more commanding obligation int, rfered, the
keeping of the promise became a crime, and the violation
of it a duty. Now, the very worst effect which the ballot
.ould possibly produce, was to enable these compulsory
end immoral promises to be violated with impunity; but
.t neither would nor could create any new breach of faith
—it neither would nor could introeuce any additional lie
mto the bu•iness of voting. Voting openly, the dependant
seeps faith with his superior, and breaks faith with his
.ountry. Voting secretly, he breaks faith with his su-
,,eaking faith with his superior, he merely returns
c' rareoi
ur. ir, oitr
ri
ys
,aan
hdb
er ekeeps
accolnomffai ittsh faith
awtegeuri;pg:hehorinioti
musdhasta
it,:
the
onsidaentn country.
hadbiwbceraoh.hennaewoikdsn
aachooinnoeughnso; Itsceufeiiagr , ibeihwtihetcuali
hlttiwilt:'ty:eaihrt.brti hilecdt athltiihshaitioeet
towards himself.—(Cheers.) Take
the ballot gets rid of the noxious
tsea:
ii!!'isabipt,toenrtrtetonihhoaceerpunrt:hvohpevoplderrl isahftiandi beentthlif
a.
erftsoehrstirevoicfirii virtue
ee, and substitutes an innoxious and excusable lie in its
dace. But that was not the right way of appreciating
s effects, for he contended that the compulsory and die-
',lciest promises, from which alone the breach of faith
prong, would be rarely or never extorted ; for where is
ee advantage of forcing a man to promise where you ceuel
tot force him to perform his promise 1 It would t!eziitisiet;
'eis and nugatory at the best, and it would even defeat
flirty
,wo end, by rousing in the mind of the dependanuini
is
II the galling ideas of coercion, and thus sitaarpiew,,, Li%
aversion to vote in the way required.
he not,
'ti that it would
nit a fruitless affront. Therefore . , ,
b:..,,yhy,
,a:
whether
eapbt
ihleoltearndrut
ioehf:gueevel.l.oe
fulfilsstp ,r Bwotyifhieeidysni:epi
ds}reavippg:rriti,:ivng.
iicestiii:
ehw:;:ohtn
iriseuntho,
ypoi;
ahlre:iia
emoss)", To
°,1,unni':,,,4"1:::,.,3;:e0es
tnth.p!ostei
:,::%g.k:;t,ertliki
et:
o,ll‘
coerce the
• Nu promise would ever he asked er ,;item,
except those which coincided with the, Tottr's inclit,a- tun i