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

THE BALLOT.

Mr. H. BERKELEY, in introducing his annual motion
on the ballot, said that he rose to make that proposition
which he had often made in vain, and which he expected
then to make in vain again. But nevertheless it was a duty
imposed on him to keep the question alive, and never was
it more imperative than at the present moment, when they
had a Reform Bill, so called, but without the only feature
which could give adequate protection to the working
classes in the exercise of the franchise. He must ask the
house to permit him to go back to 1852, when there was a
very severely contested general election. Both parties
sought then to obtain possession of Downing-street, and
great corruption was practised at every hustings. States-
men of all shades, including Lord Aberdeen, condemned the
state of the electoral system, and a committee of inquiry
was appointed. Shortly after its appointment, he (Mr.
Berkeley) met Mr. Bright, one of the members, and that
gentleman told him he had left the committee because) it
was doing nothing. That committee made a report, and
from that report resulted a bill, called the Corrupt Prac-
tices Prevention Bill, in which bill the great principle of
how not to do it was most effectively carried out. In the
House of Lords it was received with open arms, their lord-
ships, finding it likely to do nothing, being of course de-
lighted with it. (A laugh.) Whenever it was sought to
be put in operation it was met by a yell of execration ; in
fact it was worse than useless, it was positively mischiev-
ous. When they met in 1859 every one said that some-
thing should be done with the Corrupt Practices Act, and
he had expected that a grand fetish was to take place, that
the Sergeant-at-Arms would be empowered to burn the
bill in Palace-yard, whilst the bells of St. Margaret's
tolled a funeral peal—(a laugh)—when the member for
Marylebone and thirteen other lawyers got hold of it, and
they crowded about it like so many crows over carrion.
He hoped that as the noble lord the member for London
-would not include the ballot with his bill, be would
give him (Mr. Berkeley) some chance of introducing it.
This bill was founded on the principle which ho thought
best calculated to give to the electors of Great Britain and
Ireland that protection at the polling. booth which they so
eminently required, and the security of which he felt•would
procure in time purity of election, and wipe away a foul blot
from our national system of representation. When he enu-
merated the names of noble lords and hon. gentlemen who
had opposed this question, the house would at once see how
fearfully overmatched he (Mr. Berkeley) must be. Among
those who had opposed the ballot were the honoured names
of Lords Palmerston and J. Russell, Sir J. Graham, Sir G.
Grey, the Right Hon. S. Walpole, the Right Hon. S. Est-
court, and Sir G. C. Lewis. These were men of undoubted
talent, great logical powers, and accustomed to take advan
tage even of the slip of a word; and yet, although he had
employed himself lately in looking through Hansard and
reading their speeches, he had been unable to find one single
valid argument. (Laughter.) He said this with much satia-
tion, but it was with regret he felt obliged to add that he
rose from the perusal of those speeches under the painful
conviction that they were disengenuous, and that the
thoughts of the distinguished speakers were apart from
their words. In fact they appeared to stand in the position
of some eminent counsel defending a prisoner, for they took
up any argument they could find in the hope of convincing
a jury. They reminded him of a case which was defended
by one of the most eminent counsel at the bar—an hon. gen-
tleman then near him (Sir F. Kelly). That learned counsel
defended a man who had murdered a woman, and the wo-
man was murdered with prussic acid. The hon. gentleman
endeavoured to persuade the jury that the woman had died
from an over-eating of apples, the apple pips having gene.
rated prussic acid; but the jury of course scouted the idea
out of court. Now, it was just such a sort of apple argu-
ments which were used against the ballot. (Laughter.) The
only difference between the opponents of the question and
the learned counsel being that he addressed an honest and
unbiassed jury, while they addressed an honest,of coursobut
not an unbiassed jury. Among those whose great talents
he had to oppose was the noble lord the member for Tiver-
ton. He had made careful notes from the noble lord's
speeches in Hansard, but had been unable to find anything
beyond the commonest platitudes. He could discover no-
thing like serious reasoning. The noble lord told them that
it was unmanly to vote in private—(hear, hear)—although
he voted in private himself in many quarters. His noble
friend also said that it was un-English. The word " un-
English" meant something contrary to the manners and
customs of Englishmen; but how could the ballot be said
to be un-English, when it was the established mode of vot-
ing in every place but the election of members of Parlia-
ment? (Hear, hear.) Among other arguments the noble
lord stated that the elective franchise was a trust, but dur-
ing the debate there was a very powerful and logical speech
made by t.ir R. Bethell, in which he declined the term
"trust," and said the elective franchise was a right. The
noble lord replied to that argument with a speech only re-
markable for its dictatorial tone and petulance, and con-
tended it had always been a trust, and that the whole world
knew it to be a trust. This style of argument reminded
him of a certain argument in Dean Swift's " Tale of a

Tub," where Peter strove to convince Martin and John that
the brown loaf was a shoulder of mutton. " Look you,
gentlemen," said Peter, "to convince you what a couple
of blind obstinate puppies you are"—quasi himself (Mr. H.
Berkeley) and Sir It. Bethell. (Laughter.) I will use but
this plain argument. This is as good na' ural mutton as
ever came out of Leadenhall-market, and you don't say it
is so, I'll turn you both out." (Laughter.) The argument
of the noble lord might be put in the same category as this
of Peter's. (Hear, hear.) But even supposing the elec-
tive franchise to be a trust, what were the conditions of
that trust ? They were that the elector should vote freely
and indifferently without the fear of punishment "id with-
out the hope of reward. How could they tell by standing
at the polling booth and watching how an elector voted,

whether he discharged his trust faithfully or not ? In his
opinion open voting completely marred the effect of the
trust. Through open voting tens of thousands were de-
barred from going to vote at the poll at all because they
found they could not discharge their trust according to
their consciences, and many of those who did go, only voted

according to the demands of others. (Hear.) He would
now turn to another of his formidable opponents—Sir G.

Grey. (Cries of " Order.")

The SPEAKER said it was contrary to the rules of the
house to speak of a member by name.
Mr. H. BERKELEYbowed with submission to the cor-
rection, but he was only referring to a debate which had
taken place nearly fifteen years ago, in which Sir G. Grey
was one of the principal speakers. (Renewed cries of
' Order.")
The SPEAKER—I have reminded the hon. mereber what
is the rule of the house, and I am sure he is perfectly well
able to keep within the rule. (Hear.)
Mr. H. BERKELEY said he would refer to the right
hon. gentleman as his right hon. friend who had been op-
posed to him some fifteen years ago, when a motion with re-
gard to the ballot was brought forward by Sir H. Ward.
The right hon. gentleman had previously voted for the bal-
lot, and then he voted against it, and the reason he assigned

for that was, that his first constituents were in favour of the
ballot, and his second constituents were opposed to the bal-
lot. This, however, appeared to him (Mr. H. Berkeley) to
be a strange foundation for legislation. (Hear.) Next in
order came the right hon. baronet the member for Carlisle
(Sir J. Graham), but there was nothing very particular in

his remarks, since he merely recapitulated the arguments
which had been used by the noble lord the member for

Tiverton and the right hon. gentleman (Sir G. Grey). But
at the same time he was bound to say that the right hon
baronet had done good service to the cause of the ballot, for
he had stated his belief that it was a growing question, and
of great popularity amongst various constituencies; and
lastly, the right hon. gentleman had shown up one of the
most atrocious cases of intimidation which could possibly
be conceived, namely, the case of intimidation by a Whig
Lord Chamberlain among the royal tradesmen. The argu-
ments used by his right hon. friend the Secretary for War
(Mr. S. Herbert) consisted chiefly of exploded jokes and
witticisms taken from the writings of the Rev. Sydney
Smith. He was perfectly willing to make the right hon.
gentleman a present of most of Sydney Smith's arguments,
and would only retain one which appeared in a letter ad-
dressed to a lady who had congratulated him on his writings
against the ballot. In his reply the rev. gentleman said
with respect to the ballot, "Ay, it will come let me write
ever so wisely." (Hear, hear.) He would now turn to the
long speech recently made by his right hon. friend the
Home Secretary (Sir G. C. Lewis) who set about establish-
ing his case by proving that the ballot was open in Ame-
rica. The right hon. gentleman built up his walls, but he
forgot the fouidation. He (Mr. H. Berkeley) had often
shown the house that in many states in America the elec-
toral system was different with regard to the ballot, and he
had never drawn but one inference from that, namely, that
whatever system might succeed in America, one ballot only
would succeed in England—the ballot adopted in Austra-
lia. (Hear, hoar.) The noble lord the member for the
City of London was at one time opposed to the ballot be-
cause it would not keep a secret, and at another time the
noble lord was opposed to it because, he said, it would keep
a secret. In 1832 Lord John Russell was an advocate of
the ballot, for he said that in the plan for reform which he
submitted to Earl Grey's Cabinet in that year he submitted
that vote by ballot should be adopted, and that the dura-
tion of Parliaments should be five years. That plan was
discussed in the Cabinet, and those two suggestions of the
noble lord were rejected by, he believed, a majority of one.
At the general election in 1833 the noble lord, having been
in favour of the ballot in 1832, stated at a public meeting
that much as he apprehended the inconveniences which
would attend the ballot, yet he would come round to
the ballot if he thought it would prevent igti-
midation. And in 1839 the noble lord, when proposing
Mr. Heathcote for Huntingdonshire, was himself a
witness to the existence of intimidation at elections. There-
fore he (Mr. Berkeley) thought he was justified in saying
that the noble lord's ballot barometer varied very much,
and that he scarcely now appeared to have made up his
mind. One of the most bitter opponents of the ballot was
the Times newspaper, but the result of its writing on the
subject was highly satisfactory to the friends of the ballot.
The other day ho was in Yorkshire, and he there met a
Conservative gentleman possessed of large property who
had recently become a convert to the ballot. He asked him
how the happy change in his opinions had been effected,
and he said by the Times, whose stupid articles against the
ballot, which were entirely devoid of argument, had con-
vinced him that if nothing better could be said against the
ballot he was satisfied there was much which could be said
in its favour. The hon. member then referred to a quota-
tion from the Times, in which he said it answered itself, as
it stated that at the Shropshire election the " screw" was
put so ruthlessly upon the farmers by the great landlords
that the popular candidates had to succumb. He did know
thousands of men who were in want of the ballot, and so
was the editor of the Times, He had no doubt as to the
existence of the "screw," nor, it was clear, had the editor
of the Times. Mr. Berkeley then referred to the evidence
given by Mr. Thos. Gilbert before the Wakefield commis-
sion, to show the modus operandi of a borough election
agent upon the model of the late Mr. Coppock. An election
agent, by virtue of his office, became the huntsman of a pack
of local attorneys—(a laugh)—who knew the weak side of
their clients, with their liabilities and difficulties, and how
to apply upon those weak places the manly, the glorious,
and the thoroughly English screw, the employment of
which was so essentially English, and which was unknown
to any other nation. He would venture to quote one agtho -
rity to which the house would listen with respect, and that
was the late Lord Macaulay. Lord Macaulay said that cor-
ruption, when proved, rendered the parties liable to severe
punishment, and that penalties for it had been awarded to
the extent of £3OO, but they could not punish the inti-
midation by penal laws, because by doing so they would in-
fringe the most sacred rights of property. " How could
they," that eminent authority added, " require a man tc deal
with a tradesman who had voted against him, or prevent him
ejecting a tenant who had done the same ?" Lord Macaulay
further said, that the only preventive ever suggested for in-
timidation of that nature was the ballot, which protected the
voter, and loft the landlord to do what he liked with his own.
He had to congratulate the friends of the ballot upon the
fact that in her Majesty's Australian dominions secret vot-
ing had worked a quiet and bloodless revolution, for in place
of anarchy and confusion in those colonies they now' found
peace. Intimidation, which formerly prevailed, could not
exist in the atmosphere of the ballot. But he would say very
little about Australia, because there was an hon. gentleman
in the house, the member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), who
could give them the benefit of his own• personal observation
respecting the ballot in that country. But let the hon.
member beware of one great opponent, his hon. friend the
Conservative member for Bath (Mr. Way). His hon. friend
made a most remarkable speech at his last election. He com-
menced by doubting whether the ballot had succeeded in
Australia, and being met by the assurance that it had been
completely successful, ho proceeded to say that even if it
had succeeded that would be no argument with him, as
everything went by contraries in Australia. (Laughter.)
" In that country," he said, " the laws of nature are com-
pletely reversed. (Laughter.) The flowers which bespangle
Australian meads are devoid of scent, though beautiful to
the e 3 e ; the trees shed their bark, but obstinately refuse to
shed their leaves. (Laughter.) The cherry-stones persist
refuses
i
in groing outside the fruit, and oven the note of the cuckoo
—which in this country is the harbinger of spring—is only
heard in those
(tregionsaughitne
(Laughter.)
middleEvei nature i of
winter, and t
nthe
repro-
duce
dead o
herf
hL i
es
(Laughter.) • At least, they
are red before they are boiled." (Continued laughter.)
rneisgpdeyc species,
(and the very lobsters come out of the
water
Passingfroth the lower to the higher species, he said,
" How many thousands of our countrymen, who have been
exiled to Australia for their country's good, have become
virtuous citizens in that land ; so that the moral laws of
nature as well as the laws of creation are opposite in that
country." _Ergo, Mr. Way added, "If the ballot does all
you expect it to do there, I set my face against it here."
(Hear, hear.) But he (Mr. Berkeley) would hand over his
hon. friend to the hon. member for Pontefract, as he was
totally unable to cope with him. (Hear, hear.) They
found that under the electoral system as it existed in Aus-
tralia the colonies were flourishing to an unprecedented
extent, in proof of which he might quote the authority of
the Times itself. Some time ago that paper published the
balance-sheet of the colony for 1858, the result of which
was that the receipts amounted to £3,000,000 sterling—the
import duties being £1,315,000 ; the export duties, £316,000;
sales of public lands, £628,000; rents of ditto, £331,000;
and postage, £9,ooo—this amount of revenue having been
raised by taxes imposed by an assembly elected under the
ballot. That same assembly voted out of the revenues so
raised £143,000 for education, £24,000 for scientific pur-
poses, £25,000 for sanitary improvements, £765,000 for use-
ful public works, £25,000 for the relief of the sufferers
by the Sepoy mutiny, £7,000 for a public library, and
£B,OOO for a secular university.; Such a state of prosperity,
and such a course of public expenditure, he was entitled to
say, ought to dispel all the fear and all the alarming prog-
nostications of those who contended that the ballot was a
republican institution inapplicable to monarchic institu-
tions, and could not be adopted without bringing with it
confusion, difficulty, and danger. He trusted that he
should be permitted to introduce the bill, that it would be
read a first time, and placed side by aide with the measure
of the hon. member for Nottingham and the hon, and
learned PNember for Suffolk, (Divide, divide.) He would