The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-27 00:00:00

..'~t.

lic question left where it was—without a
hope left for hereafter—except whatever may
turn up by chance or accident, and thus ends the
session of 1860 !

The session of 1860 is not to pass altogether
ignobly away. The Commons have, indeed, hum-
bled themselves to the Lords. They have been
talked out of extension of the franchise, and a touch

and go at justice to petty boroughs. They have
seemed to approach legislative bankruptcy, when
they gave up Sir RICHARD BETHELL'S most impor-
tant Bill ; but they will at least have left

this mark on their legislative year—in a
pretty full house, the Commons of England
on the 24th of June, 1860, affirmed the great prin-
ciple THAT EVERY ELECTOR SHOULD GIVE HIS VOTE
IN COMPLETE SECRESY. We believe this is the
first time that a bill for secret voting has been read
a second time, and its principle thereby affirmed.
A first reading has been vouchsafed before, but on
Tuesday last, after ample time to peruse the Billin
their hands, the Commons have read it a second

time, nemine contradicente.
Much credit is due to Mr. WYLD for his conduct
of the matter thus far ; and quite sure are we that it
will be through no fault of his if the Commons of
England do not even now find time to get through a
Bill of but seventeen clauses. It was judicious not
to affront their natural pride or to fly in the face of
the prejudices of the many members who have de-
clared so often against the Ballot. We well know
that a word is, to many, more than the thing. It
has been regarded as a kind of hostile standard.
Honour required that it should be the signal
either for attack on, or for no surrender to, those
who used it. Frequently, as in this case, the thing

itself quietly slipped into a member's hands,
under a name descriptive merely of its gene-
ral character, is not so offensive after all.

Against the word Ballot, we are sorry to
say more than half the House would have voted
instanter, but how differently the simple innocuous,
equitable scheme appears.
We can imagine hon. members taking up this
bill—reading the preamble—on " the necessity of
taking more effective means for the prevention of
bribery,"—why, yes, indeed, necessary enough, Mr.
LEATHAM and his friends, and not they alone, know
that. " To alter and amend the laws and practice
regulating the taking of votes at elections.'
Amend, indeed, our M.P. would say—room enough,
as results show, there must be for that. He then
runs hastily over the clauses—he sees that they
provide a properly secured and inspected voting-
paper box, with an aperture like that of a letter-
box— that the officers and scrutineers are all
solemnly pledged not to endeavour to as-
certain how an elector has voted, nor to
divulge his vote, should it unavoidably come to
their knowledge. All right this, says M.P., why
should he not mind his own business, and not tattle
about that of other persons. He next sees that the
voting papers are to be uniform in all respects, to
be properly authenticated, and to contain the
names of all the candidates, from which the
elector is to strike out all he does not
approve of. Good, says M P., that makes
the voter sign his own record. Proceeding with
the clauses, he finds suitable rooms provided that
each person may privately mark the voting papers.
Good, again—he will do it free from excitement
and from disturbing causes. He next finds that
the elector is to sign the register, or make his
mark, opposite to his name. This seems,
so far as it goes, to afford "facility for de-
tecting and punishing personation." After this he
follows the elector to his compartment in the
inner room ; finds that there he marks off by him-
self the names of the unacceptable candidates;
folds the paper, with only the returning officer's
authentication visible, and deposits the same in
the kind of portable letter-box. Is then, says
M.P.,—is this all that was meant by the
ballot ; or, is it some new project ? What
can there be objectionable in it ? The
elector has certainly recorded his vote dis •
tinctly, and he has recorded it without fear of any
one. Even if any wealthy candidate has paid him
to vote for him, it may well be the case of " fool
and money parted," for how in the world will he
know that he has got his vote for his money ?
Then this tenth clause—well, that, any how, says
our M.P., is excellent. Not till the close of
the poll are the votes to be taken out, and
counted in the presence of the returning officer
and scrutineers of each candidate. Why, what
will become of those " judicious" voters who
plagued my honourable friend, the candidate for
Old Freemens-town, only at the last election ? In-
deed, he would know better than to offer the scamps
a farthing. Well, this scams at least a reasonable
bill. The details I can look at at leisure ; the
principles are undeniably good. Indeed, they
seem to be but two—or we might say
but one—to make the elector independent—and to
do it by making bribery and intimidation very dif-
ficult. We all know the Bribery and Corrupt
Practices Act—now to be renewed for a year—has
not done that. This seems likely to do it. Well, our
M.P. sums up—" I think I shall support WYLD on
the second reading—vote against him I will not—
no, not if the whips on both sides threaten me to-
gether."

Such, judging from the result, we may sup-
pose to have been the private meditations of our
M.P.'s in scanning the bill which they one and all
surrendered to the " Ayes" on Tuesday night.
It surely makes progress. Indep3ndent voting, we
at least have always indicated as the very life
and soul of Representative Reform. It seems like
a truism, indeed, to demand that there shall
be the utmost possible security taken that
each elector's vote shall truly represent his own
preference, and not that of some other person. Till
we have so " amended the laws and practices regu-
lating voting," as to ensure that each elector does
his own voting, not the voting of another, of what
use is any nominal extension of the franchise?
We do not want a larger number of voters who
must vote as their landlords, or employers,
or creditors of any kind require. Let
anyone but take Mr. WvLD's bill in his hands—
let him weigh every clause—let him consider the
scope and bearing of each, and we challenge him to
deny that the object of each clause, and of the
whole bill, is to insure the absolute independence
of each vote, and to place the greatest difficulties
possible in the way of bribery and corruption.
We challenge every member of the House of
Commons to produce, if he can, any existing act,
or any Bill ever proposed (unless similar in princi-
ple to this), which affords even a reasonable pro-
spect of emancipating the Intimidated, and frustra-
ting the Briber, as this bill will do. It is
simple in conception—it will work, as Mr.
CHILDERS, whose name is also on the back
tan testify from observation—it will be inexpensive
in its operationl—it will give liberty to all, while it
will deprive no man of character or of any privilege ;
for if a man chooses to tell how he will vote, or has
voted, nothing forbids his doing it. We care not
about words—some may say this is the Ballot—
, others may deny it. We say it is a
bill a bona fide practical measure. These
I are its principles and its clauses—turn them