The Sun.
London, England, 1869-04-05 00:00:00

LOADOS, MONDAY, APRIL 5, 1669.

In regard to the Ballet it has, oddly enough, been
bands-across, within these last few months, with Mr.
A. H. BRUCE, the Home Secretary, and Mr. J. S.
MILL, the late member for Westminster. Whereas
Mr. BRUCE was formerly an opponent of Secret Vot-
ing, he is now strongly in its favour. While, on the
other hand, with regard to Mr. MILL, it has to be
noted that he now strenuously argues against the
very principle of which, until recently, he has
been one of the most earnest advocates. The mem-
ber for Westminster made his recantation, as we may
call it, before the last General Election. The
Hume Secretary made his—in the midst of it,
or immediately afterwards. These strikingly opposite
decisions were not quite,but very nearly, simultaneous.
Mr. MILL'S was so far remarkable on the face of it
that it shows a philosopher can change his mind com-
pletely—as completely as though he had intellectually
turned right-about-face. " Fair is foul, and foul is
fair," with him—all of a sudden—quite as much as
with the witches in " Macbeth." Black turns white,
and vice versa. What was right yesterday, is wrong
to-day. The worst of it all being—that, it so happens,

this startling revision of his political opinions occurs
at a juncture, or directly before a political juncture

the most mal-it propos and inopportune. Insomuch that
the reverse step taken by the right hon. gentleman
the Secretary of State for the Home Department
receives, from the notorious results of the General
Election all over the country, the most absolute justi-
fication. Per contra, of course, the course pursued
by Mr. MILL has been, by those very same facts—to
put it mildly—anything but justified. Places where,
hitherto, bribery had never been heard of or suspected,
have been found very recently and very flagrantly
open to corruption. Elsewhere among the en-

larged constituencies, but now particularly in the
counties of the United Kingdom, intimidation
has only too clearly exercised its evil influences.
Against this double cruelty of bribery and intimida-
tion, no shield or screen has ever yet been devised in
any way comparable, in its pretentious even, to that
provided by the Ballot. Nevertheless it is precisely
when by the enlargement of the constituencies from
below--i.e., from the lower strata of society—the
need of some kind of guard against the briber and
against the intimidator has become more than
ever obviously desirable, that one of the fore-
most champions of the system of Secret Voting
deserts as flagrantly as ever did MOREAU or
JOMINI, and coolly goes over to the enemy. The
time and manner of this conspicuous desertion are,
to say the very least of them, singularly maladroit.
However this may be, the simple fact is as we said. Mr
MILL is a deserter from the cause of the Ballot, and
is Leuceforth an avowed enemy of Secret Voting. It
appears to him, he says, that nuw, under present cir-
.•umstances, Secret Suffrage—which he acknowledges
oddly enough to have been "a right and justifiable
demand when originally made"— would produce

more harm than g od, and that i❑ the time to
come its ill effects would only become more and
more apparent. Scarcely has he made the avowal
where his dictum is proved to have been mast fal-
lacious, here and there among the constituencies of
the United Kingdom, by means of the more and more
lamentably disastrous results of Open Suffrage among
the greatly multiplied electors in the three king-