The Sun.
London, England, 1860-03-21 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 21, 1860.

not trouble the house longer, for he knew the topic was one
that was not agreeable to many hon. gentlemen, certainly
not to the Ministerial leaders. Whenever this question
was under discussion the majority of the Ministerial leaders
were fain to take shelter under the gaberdine of Toryism.
As the poet said, "Misery made men acquainted with
strange bedfellows." (A laugh.) But, although he could
not hope for the support of those who claimed to be at the
head of the Liberal party, he knew that he was supported
by the majority of the Liberal members in Parliament, and
also by the great body of the people of Great Britain and
Ireland, in a proposition the object of which was to enable
electors of all classes to carry out freely the condition
which the possession of the electoral right imposed upon
them. The hon. gentleman concluded, amidst loud cries
of "Divide," by moving forleave to introduce the bill.
Lord HENLEY rose to second the motion, and by ap-
pealing to the indulgence of the house as a young member
who very rarely intruded upon them, succeeded in partially
silencing the impatient calls for a division which, from the
Conservative side of the house, met his attempt to address
them. He said there were two great evils in the working
of the existing electoral system which he believed the ballot
would effectually meet—intimidation and bribery. Bribery
was confined within narrower limits than intimidation, and
would, he believed, before long, if not put en end to, en-
tirely be confined to a few small boroughs; but intimida-
tion he feared would continue in a greater or less degree as
long as the electoral system existed. The species of intimi-
dation which it was most difficult to cope with was that
which was called landlord's influence. He was a landlord
himself, and confessed that there was a kind of influence
which it appeared to him any landlord might fairly exer-
cise, and which he himself had not hesitated to use. When
a tenant said, " My landlord is an excellent and honourable
man, I know he has given up his mind to political affairs
and knows more of these matters than I can pretend to do,
I will follow him to the poll," that is a feeling which I
would not discourage, for I regard it as honourable to both
parties, and it is an influence which the ballot would in no
way affect. But when the influence of the landlord wasim-
properly exercised, see how powerfully it might be brought
to bear to coerce the tenant. Take the case of tenants at
will. The tenant had perhapslived all his life in the locality
where he held his farm, and could not remove to another
part of the country with any hope of success, consequently
at every contested election, if the landlord chose to inter-
fere, he was at his mercy. It had been said that the lased-
lords of the present day were so improved in their moral
notions that they would not have anything to do with inti-
midation. He knew that was true with regard to many, but
in too many cases the landlords, if they did not interfere,
ft their agents to do what they would shrink from doing
personally. He had in his eye at that moment a case where
the agent ran about among the tenants whenever a con-
tested election arose, directing how they should vote,
threatening them if they did not vote according to the
views of the landlord, and, in short, using the influence of
the landlord in a most improper and tyrannical
manner. (Cries of "Name, name.") If he quoted instances
in support of his argument they must be taken upon his
personal credit, for he had no wish to create ill-feeling by
mentioning names of persons closely connected perhaps
with members of that house. (Hear.) He believed that
in such cases as he mentioned a tenant who voted against
the order of the agent, though he might not be actually dis-
possessed of his farm, would find himself after the election
much worse off than the other tenants upon the same
estate—for the agent had many ways of annoying and in-
juring a tenant which it would be difficult, if not impossible
to guard against. Therefore he held that the landlord's
influence, though it might in some degree be mitigated,
was still great, and, he feared, was not diminishing. It
was notorious that the influence of the landlords was so
widely extended, by the possession of estates in various
parts of the country, that they were able by their power
over the tenants to turn almost all the county elections in
their favour. What was the ordinary course of proceeding
when a gentleman intended to offer himself as a candidate
for a county ? The first thing he did was to write letters
to all the great landed proprietors in the district, asking
whether he might canvass their tenants. Were those
tenants prisoners, or were they children, that a man must
ask the permission of their landlord before he might even
canvass them for their votes. (Hear, hear.) Yet he could
quote a case in which the landlord having been applied to
actually refused to allow the candidate to ask his tenants
for their votes. He was sorry to say that the landlord to
whom he now referred was a nobleman who called himself
a Liberal. (Cheers from the Opposition.) The letter con-
taining the refusal was addressed to an honourable gen-
tleman now sitting on the other (the Opposition) side
of the house, who would confirm him if necessary.
The noble lord to whem he alluded, having been
written to, replied that he did not intend to support
the intended candidate, because he differed with him in
political opinion ; and he added, " without intending any
personal disrespect to you, I must request that my tenants
may not be canvassed in your behalf." (Hear, hear.)
And this in the nineteenth century I (Hear, hear.) It
would seem that some landlords looked upon the act of can-
vassing their tenants without permission as almost as great
a crime as that which they regarded as next to murder,
viz., shooting their pheasants. (" Oh," cheers, and laugh-
ter.) At all events it was well known that upon the an-
swer to the application to the landlord to canvass his
tenants depended the chances: nfauseess, and it that answer
was unfavourable the candidate must either retire at once
or gird up his loins for a contest, his only hope in that case
resting upon the votes of those independent freeholders
whom the Reform Bill of last year would have shut out
from the representation. (Hear, hear.) Such a system
could not be considered a good one, and he was sorry to say
that it was one that had increased since the Reform Bill of
1832. (Conservative cheers.) He believed that until that
time this great influence on the part of the landlords was
unknown. But that bill let in a new class of voters who
were especially susceptible of such influence, and he
thought it a great defect in the bill of 1860 that it would
admit no less than 100,000 more of those dependent elec-
tors. (Hear.) If the evil was unknown until the Re-
form Bill of 1832, surely they might apply a remedy that
was also unknown to the constitution at present, viz., the
ballot, which would to a great extent, he believed, be effec-
tual. With regard to the influence of the ballot in putting
a stop to bribery in boroughs, he did not think any can-
didate would be likely to purchase votes that might never
be given in his favour any more than a man would be
likely to set up a business upon the principle of buying
goods and paying for them when he was not certain
that they would ever be delivered. He was told that the
motion was strongly objected to by the Protestant county
members of Ireland, on the ground that the ballot was not
applicable to a country where the Roman Catholic religion
obtained. He, on the contrary, thought it was peculiarly
applicable, (Hear, hear.) They were told there were two
influences at work in Ireland in reference to election matters
—the influence of the landlord and the influence of the
priest. Ho could not conceive a more difficult position for
a voter to be placed in under the system of open voting,
than when the landlord insisted upon his voting one way
under the threat of dispossessing him of his holding,
and the priest made it a matter of conscience, involving
present and future punishment in case of disobedience, that
he should vote the other. In such a case the ballot would
be an effectual protection, and therefore was, he contended,
especially suited to Ireland. (Cries of " Divide, divide.")
Mr. MARSH said he should not have addressed the house
had it not been that a challenge had been held out for any
one to speak who had any knowledge of the working of the
ballot in Australia. In this respect he must give way to his
hon. friend, the member for Pontefract, who had had per-
sonal experience of the working of the ballot in Australia,
whereas he (Mr. Marsh) had not, but he had correspondents
there, and his knowledge was of New Sonth Wales,
whereas the hon. member spoke of Victoria. He held in
his hand a pamphlet purporting to be a speech of the
hon. gentleman, in which he said that the ballot was
not in Victoria as in England, exclusively advocated
by the Liberal party, and opposed by the Conservatives.
He (Mr. Marsh) never eould conceive why the ballot was
considered to be peculiarly a Liberal measure. On the con-
trary, it struck him that on the whole it might have
another tendency. It was stated that the great evil in
Australia was not so much intimidation as bribery. The
greatest evil in this country he believed to be intimidation,
and not bribery. It was stated by the hon. gentleman that
in Australia out of 200 elections there had been two con-
victed cases of bribery. That was not so very strong a re-
commendation of the ballot. The ballot was a new thing
in Australia, and they knew that all new things worked
.well at first. Besides, there was not the same inducement
to bribe in Australia that there was here. The inducement
to become a member there was not so great ; the debttes
were not so interesting, the subjects not so important, and
the company not so agreeable. (Laughter.) In America
they had had the ballot for a long time, though in every
case it was not a secret ballot, and yet the system of bribery
was carried on there to an extent which was unknown here.
Everything was decided by " caucus," and voting by ticket
was the
rule. He believed that even if the vote were kept
secret, in nine cases out of ten a man would vote as he was
them
hnoe u
d that
t h causea Thereth hegreatest
ei
m t
aote that
dos tsort of honour among thieves that
so.
corruption Australia
existed heeT
wcoulden a after
assureer
the
ballot was introduced. It was a subject of great debate in
the legislature, and the theme of discussion in every news-
paper. It was stated that certain persons had been ap-
pointed magistrates entirely because they were election
agents of a particular party. He knew an instance where a
most illiterate man was made a magistrate because he was
an active electioneering agent, and his friend, whose ser-
vant this person was, considered himself rather elevated in
society because he had a justice of the peace for his servant.
No doubt the country was prosperous, because it annually
produced ten millions worth of gold and three millions of
other produce. Now, with regard to the secresy of the
ballot in Australia, the machinery seemed to have been
contrived with considerable ingenuity, but at the same
time it seemed to be very far from perfect. The tickets
were marked on the outside with the number of the vote ;
they were then unfolded by the returning officer and placed
on their back. It seemed to him to be very easy to tamper
with the tickets. Besides, it was necessarily provided that
in the case of a petition, the tickets were to be opened so as
to ascertain how each voter voted. Consider what a pain-
ful position a man must be in who had promised to vote for
one person, and who had voted for another, (Laughter.) So

far as secrecy was concerned the ballot would certainly be I
a failure in England, for an Englishman seldom kept a se-
cret, and an Englishwoman still more seldom, and as a man
would be sure to tell his wife how he voted, then the secret
would be out. It was also stated in the pamphlet he had
referred to, that at the last elections in Victoria there was
scarcely a case of intimidation. Now he held in his hand a
letter from a candidate who had been successful, and who
therefore did not write under angry feeling, and he com-
plained that the servants of his opponent were driven up
like flocks and herds to the poll. One great evil of the bal-
lot was that where a man had no responsibility ho was care-
less about giving a vote at all. At the last election for Syd-
ney, though the Prime Minister was one of the candidates,
not more than one in seven of the voters came to the poll.
He maintained that this was a great evil. Nor was he
much struck by a recent case in which kingdoms had been
given away by the ballot. It seemed to him strange that
the vote should be so nearly unanimous, though he thought
that in Romagna they had acted wisely in voting for the
annexation. (Cries of" Question.") His belief was that
we should never get rid of bribery till we treated it as a
moral crime. He had no hesitation in saying that if the
system of intimidation were increased, or even continued as
it was now, the ballot would some day or other be applied
in spite of all the arguments that could be brought against

Mr. C. FORTESCUE said it so happened that during
the several years he had been in Parliament he had never
given but one vote on this question, and that was in favour
of the ballot. He was a party man enough to feel consider-
able reluctance at voting against those with whom he ordi-
narily acted ; but since he gave that vote he had thought a
good deal on this subject, and the more he had thought of
it the less he had liked the ballot. That feeling had not been
lessened but increased by his Australian experience in the
Colonial-office. He spoke with a perfect recollection of the
speech of the hon. member for Pontefract; but in spite of
that speech, his strong conviction was that we had nothing
to learn from Australia on this subject. He had seen many
private letters, and had had many Australian papers, and
his belief was that the last general election which took place
in Australia was marked by the same electoral evils which
disgraced this country. Corruption, intimidation, and bri-
bery were at least as rife as they had ever been in the old
country. But without going into that, it was enough to say
that the circumstances, political and social, of the Austra-
lian colonies were so entirely different from those of the
old country, that it was impossible with any safety to draw
a conclusion from one to the other. It was admitted by
the hox. member for Pontefract that the evils to be met by
the ballot in Australia were of a different nature from those
that existed in England, that the influences were from
above, and not from below, from masses and not from indi-
viduals. The question was not whether the ballot might
succeed in Australia or in the United States. In some re-
spects he thought it might lead to the more orderly and
peaceful conducting of elections in such communities ; but
the question was, would it meet the evils that were preva-
lent here. His belief was that the ballot would be futile
against the landlord, the agent, the attorney, the banker,
or whoever it might be who possessed the influence, and
that the safety and the secrecy, if they were obtained,
would be obtained at a price which they were not worth, the
price of the voter's honesty and uprightness.
Mr. LAWSON, who rose amid loud cries of "Divide,"
said he should not have thought it would have been neces-
sary to appeal to the house for that courtesy which they

usually extended to a member who addressed them for the
first time. He thought the house ought to be much obliged
to the hon. member for Bristol for bringing this subject

forward. He agreed with him when he stated last night tha

be thought his bill a much better bill than that of the noble
lord the member for London, and he believed that the
majority of reformers would rather have the ballot than the
noble lord's bill. A great deal had been said about the
merits and demerits of the act of 1832. His own opinion
was that that measure had conferred a great benefit upon
the country, but that it had not yet had a fair chance.
(Hear, hear.) And the proof of it was that a general election
had never yet taken place since the Reform Bill became law
when the table was not covered with petitions complaining
of undue returns. If a better machinery had been devised
in 1832 for taking votes he believed that the cry for reform
at the present moment would be much less loud. Many
attempts had of late been made to diminish corrupt prac.•
tices, but there was no reason to think that those endea-
vours had met with any considerable success. The house
had, however, the remedy in their own hands. Let them

only adopt the principle of secret votes, and the impossi-
bility of knowing whether value could be obtained for the
money expended would act as a great check upon the scan-
dalous practices that now prevailed. It had been said that
the ballot would be totally ineffectual in small boroughs.
It might very probably prove less efficient in those consti-
tuencies ; bn.t he trusted that in the supplementary Reform
Bill that must sooner or later follow the bill of the noble lord

small boroughs would be totally extinguished. The hon
gentleman went on to argue that there was no part of the
liberal programme upon which the people had more set
their hearts ; but the increasing impatience of the house
was so loudly manifested that the concluding portion of hi
speech did not reach the gallery.
Viscount PALMERSTON—Sir, I shall not treat the
house with so much disrespect as to
" Go on refining,
And think of convincing when they think of dining."

(Loud cheers and laughter.) But I wish to assure my hon.
friend opposite that there was nothing in the speech which
he has given us this evening, and which I cannot say was
more argumentative than his speeches generally are, which
in any degree tended to alter the opinion that I have pre-
viously expressed with regard to this measure. I was in
hopes that when he began to quote my speech he would
have had the goodness to go through it, because though it
had not convinced him, I was in hopes that the arguments
which it contained—the sound arguments as I believe them
—would have convinced other persons if they had heard
them read. (Hear, hear.) My hon, friend, however, merely
told us that his mind was impenetrable, and that no argu-
ment directed against the proposal, which is the hobby-
horse he is now riding, would have the smallest effect.
(Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman finds fault with an ob-
servation of mine, namely, that the franchise is not a right
but a trust ; and that it is in accordance with the practice
of this country that every trust of that nature should be
exercised in the public view and under a sense of public
responsibility. (Cheers.) But I wish my hon. friend to
consider a little the consequences to which the oppo-
site doctrine would inevitably lead. If the franchise is
a right, then a man is entitled to do what he likes with
it. (Cheers.) My hon. friend's doctrine goes in fact to
legalise bribery; because a voter might justly say, " If my
vote is a right, I ant entitled to dispose of it as I please ;
and to make any profit of it that I can." (Cheers.)
On the other hand, so long as the franchise is held to be a
trust, it is clear that a man is guilty not only of a moral but
of a political offence, when he parts, for the sake of profit to
himself, with that which was given him only in trust for
the benefit of the community. (Cheers.) I say that the
franchise would be a trust even if you had universal suf-
frage—that is, if every man of full age and sane intellect
was entitled to a vote—because even then he would have to
exercise the function of voting in trust for the benefit of
that other portion of the community, the women and chil •
dren, whose interests
iird be deeply affected, but who
would not themselves titled to go to the poll. Every
political function which is vosted in any man in this country
is exercised in the eyes of the people. Why, my hon. friend
has himself instanced the municipal elections ; and both
these and all other political acts are done in public. My
hon. friend tells us that it is untrue to say that secret vot-
ing would be an un-English proceeding, because he says at
the clubs you vote by ballot. But does he mean to say that
the voting by ballot at the clubs is secret? (Hear.) Did it
never happen to my hon. friend to be asked to go down to
his club and vote for the election of some good fellow ? Did
he never know a party got together after dinner to go down
at 10 or 11 o'clock to the club in order to bring in some
friend ? or was henever asked to go down in the same man-
ner to keep out some disagreeable bore ? (Cheers and laugh-
ter.) Is it not generally known who puts in the white balls
and who the black ? or at any rate, is it not known among
the circle of a man's friends how he votes ? There is, in
truth, no secrecy ; and consequently my hon. friend is not
borne out by the example of the clubs when he attempts to
prove that secret voting is not abhorrent to English prac-
tice. (Cheers.) Then I maintain that if the bill of the hon.
gentleman were carried, and if the ballot were enjoined by
law, you would degrade and demoralise the people of this
country—you would turn your electors into law breakers or
hypocrites. (Cheers.) They would be law breakers if they
made known their votes, and if they kept their secret they
would be hypocrites, because they would probably have
been canvassed—they would have been asked to promise
their votes, and:many of them would no doubt have promised
them, and would have voted in violation of their promise.
(Cheers.) If they kept their secret they would probably be
exposed to exactly the same results as those from which it
was the object of secret voting to secure them. Well, then,
the measure would entirely fail of its purpose. (Hear,
hear.) We have heard in the course of this evening of the
way in which the ballot operates in Australia ; and we have
been shown that it does not prevent bribery and intimida-
tion, the two things to guard against which we are told that
it is necessary to adopt it. It is somewhat singular that
the advocates of the ballot, who for a long time plumed
themselves upon the example of the United States, have
been compelled to quit the opposite shores of the Atlantic
and to take refuge at the antipodes of the British Isles.
(Hear, hear.) We are told that everything in Australia is
the N ery reverse of What it is in England ; and I believe
that my hon. friend has caught the infection from that
colony. In this country we inculcate upon our children the
propriety of bowing to the wisdom and experience of their
parents, but the hon. gentleman calls on the parent to imi-
tate the errors of the child. (Cheers and laughter.) He
quotes to us an indiscreet act on the part of Australia; and
then he asks the mother country to depart from her own old,
time-honoured, and established custom. (Cheers.) I do not,
however, think that the hon. gentleman is likely to succeed.
(Hear.) I shall not intrude upon the house by repeating
the speech which I was in some hope the hon. gentleman
would himself have read to you, and of which I think the
arguments are very good. (Laughter.) I congratulate and I
really compliment my hon. friend on the devotion he has
shown to this subject, which he has pursued through good
report and through bad report—sometimes, meeting with

evil success, and sometimes with a success somewhat less
evil. His perseverance does him great honour, and I hope
that when the day comes—and long may that day be de-
ferred—when a public memorial shall be raised to my hon.
friend—the monument which he has so well deserved may
be erected, in the shape of a ballot-box. (Loud laughter.)
Mr. BERKELEY, in reply, pointed out the inconsis-
tency of the arguments which had been adduced with re-
gard to the case of Australia ; it being urged on the one side
that bribery could not be detected, whereas it was main-
tained on the other side that it was both detected and pun-
ished. He had not heard one single argument adduced
against the ballot that night. His noble friend, who really
took away his breath—(laughter)—said that by the ballot
they would make voters liars and degraded slaves ; but the
noble lord did not say how many degraded slaves were
already bound to the chariot wheels of the country gentle-
men ; and as for lying, the present system made men to lie
to God and for the detriment of their country—as he supposed
it would be admitted was done when a man voted against his
conscience. (Cheers.) His noble friend complained that
he (Mr. Berkeley) had not read his speech to the house ;
and he hinted that if he had done so his own Attorney-
General would have disappeared into a greasy spot.
(Laughter.) The noble lord's speech was in fact totally
opposite to that of his Attorney-General ; and he (the hon.
gentleman) would read both. (Loud cries of " No, no,"
and laughter.) Well, the two speeches were as different as
possible ; the one being replete with argument, and the
other containing nothing but delightful audacity. (Laugh-
ter.) If the house had had its dinner he would read the
speeches, and it would be seen whether it was the Attor-
ney-General or the noble lord that would be knocked into
a greasy spot. The hon. member for Pontefract (Mr. Chil-
ders) was looking wide awake, to answer anything that
might have been said against the precedent of Australia,
but there had been nothing to answer. (Cheers.) Aus-
tralia had in fact proved the case of the ballot, for it had
demonstrated the possibility of detecting and punishing
bribery, even if secret voting were adopted. The noble
lord sneered at the ballot as his (Mr. Berkeley's) hobby.
Let the noble lord take care the time did not come when he
would be glad to get up behind him. (Great laughter.)
In spite of that placid manner of his noble friend, he thought
there could be no more unpleasant object of contemplation
than the voting list must be to his noble friend on the
morning after a ballot debate—(hear, hear)—showing how
it separated and divided the very party by the aid of whom
he held his power. (Hear.)
The house then divided, and the numbers were—
For the motion ..
Against it
The metion was consequently lost.
JEWS ACT AMENDMENT.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE obtained leave to bring in a bill
to amend the Act of the 21st and 22d years of Victoria,
chapter 49, intituled "An Act to provide for the Relief of
her Majesty's Subjects professing the Jewish Religion."
He said he believed no objection would be entertained to
the introduction of this bill, which was substantially the
same as that which he introduced last session. He thought

the time had fully arrived when the alterations whit), he
proposed should be established. They had now four dia..
tinguished and honourable gentlemen amongst them re-
turned by four large constituencies, and who were honoured
and respected by all. At this period of time there ought
xis longer to be any distinction drawn. He now simply
wished to remove from the former act those words by which
a distinction was placed between persons professing the
Jewish religion and others ; but at the same time he wished
to confine the measure entirely to that house ; leaving it to
the other house to indulge in any prejudices they might
entertain upon the subject. (Hear, hear.)
Lord R. CECIL said that he did not intend to oppose the
motion for the introduction of this bill, but he thought it
threw a rather strong light upen the philosophy of Parlia-
mentary settlements. When this measure was first brought
forward, the house was told that this was to be a final set-
tlement of the question. (No, no.)
Sir G. GREY said that the noble lord was quite wrong
in supposing that there had been any compromise on this
subject to which members of the Jewish persuasion were
parties. No one member of the Jewish persuasion ever
thought that this measure was to be a final arrangement.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said that the noble lord was quite
right in supposing that this measure was a compromise be-
tween the two Houses of Parliament. It was accepted by
the House of Commons in that light. He had sat upon the
committee on this subject, of which the hon. member (Mr.
T. Buncombe) was also a member, and he remembered that
the hon. member was in a very small minority on the ques-
tion of the expediency of disturbing the law on this ques-
tion.
Mr. ROEBUCK said he had only a word or two to offer
on the observations which had fallen from the noble lord
the member for Stamford. He complained that a settlement
had been disturbed. He (Mr. Roebuck) affirmed that there
could be no settlement of a question relating to the onward
progress of mankind. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord was a
Conservative, and was doomed to frequent disappointment.
If he wore standing still, the world was moving on around
him, and he must be prepared for repeated changes and
amendments. (Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Mr. T. DUNCOMBE, leave was
given to bring in the bill ; the house having resolved itself
into a committee to move a resolution, authorising the in-
troduction of the bill.

PORTPATRICK & DONAGHADEE HARBOURS.
General UPTON moved for a select committee to inquire
into the truth of the allegations contained in the petition
of the Ayr and Maybole Junction Railway Company, pre-
sented in August last, and printed in the 11th report of the
Select Committee on Public Petitions, appendix 202,
relative to the application of the grant for
Portpatrick and Donaghadee Harbours. The honourable
and gallant member stated that the grant had been madeby
a Treasury minute of August, 1856 ; and one condition was
that the lines of railway necessary to connect Donaghadee
with the main line at Belfast, and Portpatrick with Glas-
gow, should be completed by the proprietors before any
money was advanced. After a 'Retracted statement from
the gallant general,
An HON. MEMBER moved that the house should be
counted. At that time there were barely 30 members pre-
sent ; but in the interval which is allowed to elapse before
the counting takes place, upwards of a dozen members en-
tered, and the requisite number was, of course, found to be
present.
General UPTON proceeded to read a lengthened corres-
pondence which had taken place between the directors of
the railways and the Treasury. Before he had got through
it,
The motion for counting the house was renewed, and
there being now only 31 members present, the house was
counted out at half-past eight o'clock.