The Sun.
London, England, 1869-01-16 00:00:00

THE BALLOT,

A:meeting of the advocates of Vote by Ballot was held on
Friday evening at the Arundel Hall, Arundel-street,
Strand. The admission was by ticket, and the hall was
well filled. The Right Hon. T. Milner Gibson presided,
and ,was supported by Mr. Buxton, M.P., Mr. Richard,
M.P., Mr. Sartoris, M.P., Mr. C. Reed, M.P., Mr.
Holms, M.P., Mr. Fowler, M.P., Mr. E. Beales, M.A.,
Mr. Handel Cossham, Mr. G. J. Holyoake, Mr.
Lucraft, &c.
Letters expressing sympathy with the objects of the
meeting were announced as having been received from
Captain Grosvenor, M.P., Mr. Thomas Hughes, M.P.,
Mr. Stansfeld, M.P., Mr. Forster, M.P., Mr. P. A.
Taylor, M.P., Mr. Torrens, M.P., the Right Hon. C. P.
Villiers, M.P., Mr. Brand, M.P., Mr. Jacob Bright, M.P.,
Sir Francis Crossley, M.P., Mr. M. Chambers, M.P.,
Hon. A. Kinnaird, M.P., Mr. A. H. Layard, M.P.,
Alderman Carter, M.P., Mr. E. Baines, M.P., Mr.
M'Arthur, M.P., and many other members ; Messrs. W.
Edwards, Bernal Osborne, General Thompson, &c.
The CHAIRMAN, who on rising was loudly cheered, said
that they were met to consider whether any better plan
could not be adopted than that which now existed for
taking votes at elections, in order to enable the electors to
record their votes in a genuine and independent manner.
There were on the platform many gentlemen, members of
Parliament and others, who were in favour of free voting.
He was sorry that illness had prevented the attendance of
Mr. F. H. Berkeley, M.P., who was an old and tried friend
of the Ballot. Another distinguished gentleman had also
wished to be present, but was prevented by a severe cold
from attending a public meeting —Sir Henry Bulwer, M.P.
Sir Henry had given notice of his intention of bringing
the question before Parliament in the ensuing session,
but on hearing that Mr. Berkeley proposed to
again advocate its adoption, he had withdrawn
his motion in favour of the hon. member for
Bristol. There was no better friend to the Ballot in this
country than Sir Henry Bulwer, and no one better able to
elucidate the subject. The present time was opportune
for discussing the question. The events of the late general
election were still fresh in their memories. There was
scarcely any one of them who had taken an active part in
any of the recent contests but was perfectly conscious of
many electors who had been forced to record their votes in
a manner antagonistic to their wishes and opinions, and
also of many others who had abstained from voting
from a lively apprehension that they might give
offence to some person or other who might be
enabled to injuriously affect their interest. Another
reason why the present time was opportune to discuss
the Ballot was, that a very large proportion of members of
the Liberal party had expressed opinions favourable to
the Ballot on the hustings. They knew that the party
now formed a large majority of the House of Commons.
Many persons even thought that there was an actual
majority in Parliament in favour of the Ballot. They had
also a Government certainly not hostile to the Ballot,
perhaps favourable, but certainly at the worst only neutral.
He did not know why the Conservative party should be so
strongly opposed—as some people said they were—to the
Ballot. For his own part, he did not consider that it was a
party question. He believed that both parties—Conservative
and Liberal—had an interest in getting rid of the present
system of open voting with all its mischiefs—intimidation,
corrupt practices, bribery, and the rest. In Australia it
was not treated as a party question, but, on the contrary,
was promoted by the leading and best men of all parties,
who felt that they had an interest in securing purity of
election, and in getting from the electoral body their
genuine and independent opinions. The Liberal party
in this country could carry the Ballot if they would. It
rested in•their hands. And he felt perfectly convinced that
if a few men of the party determined that it should be a
real question, a question to be passed into law, the Govern-
ment would not stand in the way ; and he doubted, if the
House of Commons agreed to the change, whether that
august body the House of Lords would not think it expe-
dient to concur. The real question which they had to
consider was whether the Liberal party should snake the
Ballot a question of the present session, would it be right
for them to press it upon the Government, and insist that
as there was a favourable majority in the House it
should be passed through that assembly, and sent up to
the House of Lords? He was of opinion that it
was. The public mind was awake to the evils of the
present system, and the sooner they made the change the
better, for who knew how soon they might have another
general election, and then if the Ballot were law they would
be prepared to take the votes of the electors without the
attendant evils of which they had hitherto complained.
Reason, authority, and experience were all on the side of
the Ballot. Open voting was in many instances a restric-
tion on the privilege of the franchise. There was no coun-
try in the world where the Ballot at the present moment
was snore needed than in England—where it was more neces-
sary to adopt it to secure freedom to the voter, and as a means
of abolishing the unseemly practices which at present pre-
vailed at elections. Every cause which led to its adoption
in Australia existed herein greater force—the feudal element
in the counties, the notion that the vote of the tenant
belonged to the landlord—the social influence—also the
mob intimidation which sometimes prevailed in large
towns, and which existed by the influence of large organi-
sations ; and also in other ways, when it was thought that
a man wished to give what was termed an unpopular
vote—these and other influences made it necessary that
we should adopt the Ballot. Was there any other remedy
for intimidation? Had any other method ever been sug-
gested for securing freedom of election ? We had judges
sitting at the present time carrying on investigations of
the most tedious and fruitless character, and when he read
of the pains and penalties which were enacted ostensibly
to put down bribery, it occurred to him that all this
waste of time and money, and judges engaging
in duties somewhat beneath their dignity, might
be obviated by the adoption of the Ballot. No
one had any right to know how the elector voted. It
was only those who were afraid to trust the constituencies
who opposed the measure. They had given freedom to
the voter; they knew that the Ballot would increase the
power of the elector ; and therefore they thought that the
next best thing to not extending the franchise at all was
to take care that its exercise should be under the contro:
of those opinions which they knew prevailed in our com-
munity of England.

Mr. C. REED, M.P., said that this was his first appear.
ante upon the platform on behalf of the Ballot. He had
always been open to conviction, and the landlords of
England had convinced him of its necessity. He moved
" That the recent general election has proved that the
increase in the number of voters in the several counties
and boroughs in which contests took place did not diminish,
as many persons expected, the intimidation and corrupt
practices which have always been more or less attendant
upon our present system of voting."
Mr. RICHARD, M.P., seconded the resolution. There
was no political question on which argument was so com-
pletely on one side as that of the Ballot, nor was there
any obstacle so formidable to its being made law, as that
class of men who possessed land and money. He believed
that they would live to see the day when even bishops
would be elected by ballot. They were told that it was
beneath the dignity of a man to vote by ballot, but he
wanted to know how the present system preserved the
dignity of the man. He contended for the protection of
the Ballot specially and emphatically for the Principality
of Wales, because they were Nonconformists in religion,
and consequently Liberals in politics. He would not say
anything disrespectful of the Welsh landlords, Tcries
though they be, but somehow or other they all seemed to
have a kind of monomania, labouring under the delusion
that they had the right to dictate to their tenants the
religion and politics they should follow. But after two
centuries of hard struggles the people of Wales had won
for themselves what he believed they would never shake
off, and that was perfect freedom to worship their God ;
but before they could have perfect freedom of exercising
their political privileges, they must be allowed to vote by
Ballot, and he trusted that the present meeting was
simply one of a hundred. He believed that this was the
" tide in the affairs of the Ballot," and if taken at the
flood would lead on to victory.
The motion was then put, and carried with acclamation.
Mr. CHARLES BUXTON, M.P., then moved a resolution
congratulating the friends of free voting on the large
addition which had been made to the number of sup-
porters of the Ballot in the House of Commons. In the
past election he fully believed that there had been little
bribery, but a very great deal of intimidation. No doubt
the Ballot was considered to be a very unpleasant thing,
and he, for one, wished they could go on without it ; but
there were so many proofs and arguments in its favour
that he certainly thought its want seriously interfered
with the expression of the genuine sentiment of the people
of this country. He thought that if they had the Ballot
it would enable men of no great wealth, but of ability, to
push their way into Parliament ; and arguments in its
favour went to chew that the opinions of the British people
would be more emphatically and fully expressed.
Mr. ONSLOW, M.P., seconded the resolution. He con-
tended that there never was a more important moment
than the present for discussing the vital question of the

Mr. BEALES supported the resolution, which was carried
unanimously.

Mr. HOLMS, M.P., in moving the third resolution, gave
it as his opinion that the time had arrived for the Ballot,
and that without it the people of England would never be
honestly represented. He trusted, therefore, that the
people of this country would never cease their agitation
till they had the Ballot.
Mr. ARNOLD seconded the motion in a brief speech,
describing the operations of the Ballot in Athens, and it
was carried.
Mr. H. COSSAAM moved, and Mr. FOWLER, M.P.,
seconded the adoption of a petition to the House of
Commons.

A cordial vote of thanks to the chairman *sod the pro.
cee4iDge • .—•