The Sun.
London, England, 1860-04-23 00:00:00

years after the first Reform Act, and purchased 1
partly because of its carrying a vote with it ; and I
we all remember that the Conservative judge
TYNDALE, in a case, too, relating to one of the
county votes created by the League, declared pur-
chases with such an object to be highly commend-
able and worthy of a citizen ; the other fell to us
in the capacity of trustees under a will. Hence we
have naturally felt more than common interest in
the question of conveyance of voters and payment
of travelling expenses. In both the borough and
the county it has been brought directly under
our notice.

In the case of the borough the expense is need-
less ; we hesitate not to say it is an abuse ; an im-
position on a candidate or on his supporters,
which ought, if possible, to be abated. The pol-
ling-booth in boroughs is never so far from the
elector's house that it would hurt him'', to walk
to it ; at the worst, in a few cases, an invalid or
very busy man might need a cab or an omnibus,
but these cases are so comparatively few that the
persons could pay the trifling sum themselves, and
would do so if they cared about the election. At
the last election we had scarcely swallowed our
breakfast when up drove a cab to hurry us off that
we might " poll early for DUNCOMBE and PETO."
The distance was so little that we could but laugh,
and ask whether we were supposed to be lame—
and, as the booth was in our way to our daily en-
gagement, we preferred stepping to it at our lei-
sure. Now all this is an absurd and wanton in-
fliction on the borough candidates. We do not
know that we can think of any objection to for-
bidding by law providing or paying for conveyance
of borough voters. No increase of polling-booths
would be needed. Every voter could walk, or
easily afford the small cost of riding—while the
charge for conveying all is heavy for one.
The case with counties is altogether different.
Landlordism prevents many contests, but we have
both had them threatened, and actually had them
in our own father-county, where we have the
honour to be " free and independent electors," and
of that enviable class which the Times says is so
very large, not needing the ballot for itself. Unfor-
tnnately, however, with one or two partial excep-
tions, so complete is the:rule of the landlords, that
they have met together in a room in a hotel and
settled for us who should be members. Their tenants
were not now even consulted. Two Tories, or a
compromise to avoid a contest, was, after count-
inghow many head of tenants each could muster,
the regular thing. To return, however, to our
personal experience. Once we received a circular,
by post, begging our " vote and interest," with
intimation that arrangements with the Eastern
Counties Railway for conveyance would soon be
made; quickly, however, it was followed by
another, which might have run—" The belligerent
landlordshave agreed to an armistice; independent
voters will, therefore, not be wanted." The next
time, however, it came to a fight, and then, if we
would have condescended to accept the money
for the conveyance, we might have travelled
first-class express, and so forth, at the candidate's
expense.

We preferred, of course, to go at our own charge;
but it led us to reflect then, and Mr. COLLIER'S
proposal invites us to do so again, on the system.
And, first, we asked ourselves, what might be said
for allowing _out•voters at all for: counties.
.In

our own case we thought a good deal might be
said. We are still much interested in the county
of our birth, and of old friends and relatives. We
are interested in the property we possess as free
holders or hold in trust. And ours is but the case
of the great majority of out-voters. We would not
deny, indeed, that our county votes interest us
quite as much, to say the least, as that of the huge
borough in which we happen to live. We could
not, then, agree to abolish the right of voting for
property held in counties, by the hunlreds who re-
side in the metropolis or in other great towns of
the kingdom. They have often the heartiest inte-
rest in the scenes of former days. And we believe
the number of those out-voters whose connection
with counties is factitious: and political merely, is
much smaller than that of the class to which we
belong, and for which we plead. And we might,
to Conservatives, say a great deal more on the an-
tiquity and venerable character of our franchise.
But, we are told, our privilege leads to abuse. If
we allow conveyance of county voters, the candi-
date or his friends must incur an enormous ex-
pense; and, worse than all, the necessary expense
of conveyance will be made a pretext for bribery.
We believe there is hardly such a thing as pecu-
niary bribery in counties. The meaner bribery of
intimidation is so complete that, in this respect, the
lash does the work of the purse. _ It resolves itself
into simple conveyance. Now we do not see how
you can make conveyance bribery, At the con-
tested election referred to, an old Tory friend of ours
hired an old stage coach, which still creeps from the
railway station to a small county town, and took a
whole coachload of voters from his neighbourhood
some seven or eight miles to the poll. Are such
deeds of good neighbourhood to be prevented ; yet
it is impossible to make a stand where the law now
does, and to permit the refinement of mere convey-
ance, but not the giving a man five shillings to
pay for his ride. Then, again, of the distant
out-voters alike ourselves, we know of some to
whom the expense, of railway fare and time
is a somewhat serious matter. The candidate,
however, or some of his committee, knowing them
and their circumstances well, and wishing for their
votes, would rather not put them to the expense of
corning, why then:should they not be allowed to
frank them ? Both parties obtain then what both
reasonably wish, and bribery there is none. The
worst is, that in a close run the distant voter may
be offered something more than his expenses if he
will poll on one side.
We have been compelled, after all, to see in the
whole circumstances of the question of conveyance
of voters but another argument for the Ballot. It
really does appear as if all things combined to
prove it to be the key to unlock every difficulty.
Were county voting and borough voting too, by
ballot, no law on the subject of conveyance would
be needed. No one would pay for any man's con-
veyance to the poll unless quite sure of his vote.
Hence, under voting by Ballot, the only cases of
conveyance would be—when a person was too
unwell, or in too narrow circumstances, to be able
to poll without such help. These cases mist be few
indeed ; and, if there were any, it would be only
those of persons whose political views were at the
same time so certain, that conveyance would be as-
sistance, not bribery. We hope the day is not very
distant when Mr. COBDEN, Mr. WALPOLE, Sir G.
C. LEWIS, Mr. HENLEY, and all who show interest
in the subject will acknowledge that a Bill on the
Conveyance of Voters must be a Bill for the
Ballot.

There is very little said now-a-days in regard to
Administrat ire Reform. Yet the popular solicitude
is as eagerly directed, we believe, as ever to the
halcyon time still not wholly despaired of, which
may witness at last its partial realisation. F.co-
nomy is still the national aspiration. With our
annual expend it ure magnified at length to the fright-
ful annual sum of £70,000,000, we yet cherish a