The Sun.
London, England, 1858-06-09 00:00:00

geratod. The noble lord the member for Tiverton I
could, of course, take any time he pleased, but the
action of parties at his (Ur. Bright's) side of the house,
under its ancient leaders, would become impossible if the
present state of things continued. He therefore asked the
noble lord the member for Tiverton, and the noble lord the
member for London, as their names had been mentioned
as joint or united leaders, whether it was fitting that they
should lead a party of 230 or 210 gentlemen who were
pledged to their constituencies and to their own convic-
tions, or whether that party were to give up this great
question to follow them ? (Hear, hear,) He wished it to
be understood that he did not speak in anger against the
noble lord the member for Tiverton. (Laughter.) He
had no such sentiments to wards him—(laughter)— for he
only sought to advance the question by fair argument.
Why, he asked, were hon. gentlemen opposite so much
frightened on this subject? Did they not know very well
that they had often been terribly frightened before with-
out cause ? Did not the house remember the awful and
solemn predictions of the hon. gentleman the member for
Sotnersetshire (Mr. Miles), who had foretold, when the
Liberal party was fighting the battle against protection,
that the country would go to absolute perdition. (Laugh.
ter.) And yet the hon. gentleman was now, no doubt,
ready to admit that the enemies of protection had conferred
the greatest benefits upon the country in general, and
upon Somerset in particular. (Hear, hear.) The ruin of the
shipping interest had also been predicted, and yet no such
catastrophe had occurred. Why, that very day a bill had
been passed which at time excited violent foam but which
even the right hon. gentleman the member for the Uni-
versity of Oxford found the greatest possible difficulty in
defending ; he referred to the bill for the abolition of
church rates. That measure had been passed by a ma-
jority of 63, and he believed the unanimous hope of
the house now was that it would be dealt with gently
in that " other place" to which it had been sent, and
that they might hear no more about it. (Hear, hear-)
He confessed that he had faith in the people of Eng-
land, and that he was of opinion that they were enti-
tled to the consideration of the house. The people now
looked forward to the house with greater confidence
than at any previous period in the history of Parliament.
(Hear, hear.) It had d ins much to relieve them of fiscal
burdens and to free their industry, and 'depend upon it
they were not insensible of these concessions, or of the im-
proved conduct of Parliament in reference to popular legis-
lation. He asked the house to try this great experiment,
on the ground that the people deserved it, and because no
Reform Bill could succeed in which it was not a feature.
He implored them not to be led away by the flimsy argu-
ments of the noble lord the member for Tiverton. It was
not to be expected that the noble lord at his time of life
would change his opinion', and if he (Mr. Bright) had
himself been 20 or 30 years of the same opinion, he might
possibly call the ballot "an absurdity," and not a great
question of public policy. For the sake of morality and
tranquillity for the future, he asked the house to give a fair
and careiid consideration, and he hoped a favourable vote,
to the proposition of his hon. friend the member for Bristol.
Mr. WALPOLE said the hon. member for Birmingham
had commenced his speech by saying that during his ab-
sence of three years from the house—an absence which any
one who valued great abilities honestly and independently
exercised, must deeply regret—there had been an unwil-
lingness in the house to discuss this question. If the hon.
gentleman had been among them he would have known
that the reason why the discussion had not commanded so
much attention as formerly was, in the first place, that
those who supported his views had been unwilling to pro-
long the discussion—(" no, no," from tho lower Opposition
benches)—and, secondly, that the arguments on toe ques-
t( n had been E 0 exhausted that the house was more or less
tired of the subject. The hon. member for Birmingham
had delivered a speech of great power, and he (Mr. Wal-
pole) wished to make a few observations in reply. The
hon. member had said, somewhat differently from the hon.
member for Bristol, that the q nestion before them was one of
political machinery, while the latter hon. gentleman had said
that the word " ballot" was to be the Shibboleth of the
party opposite when an election should take place. He
agreed with the hon. member for Birmingham that this
was rather a question of political machinery than of prin-
ciple. They all desired that elections should be free from
the contaminating and corrupting influences which still
unfortunately existed, but to make the electors free, the
electors must be independent, and when those influences
still exist they must be detected and punished. (Hear,
hear.) If it was attempted to establish any other principle
instead of accomplishing the object the hon. gentleman had
in view, he would find himself failing in attempting to
throw his protection around the weak, which he desired
to do against the strong. He would ask the hon. gentle-
man to consider whether or not they were likely, by means
of laws established, or which might be established, to pre-
vent undue influence, that undue influence which it was
sought to put down by secret voting. He would ask
whether it was not clearly shown that the best means of
acting was by calling in public opinion and insisting on
individual responsibility? (hear, hear.) By these means
corruption and intimidation had been diminished—by the
exposure and punishment which an open system of voting
enabled them to apply. (Hear, hear.) There was a time
when even that house was open to the corruption of foreign
Potentates, but the laws of the house, and their interfer-
ence in punishing the members, together with the force of
public opinion, had ended that state of things. Since the
Revolution, too, corruption among the electors had reached
to a most dangerous extent. Still, the laws which had
been passed had diminished corruption and intimidation
also, and especially of late, year by year, this hod been the
case. They had lately had the measure of the noble lord
the member for London, which very much facilitated
proof of agency and means of detection. The hon. mem-
ber for Birmingham argued that they could not protect
the weak without having votes taken in secret. He would
ask the hon. member if he did not fix his eye too much
on the evils aroun I him, knowing them to be in ex-
istence, without considering the full consequences which
would follow from the introduction of another sys-
tem. Even if votes were taken in secret, every one, from
the freedom with which things were discussed in this coun-
try, would know the opinions of his noiglabours, and in-
timidation, even iii ire bul:ot. were adopted. could. net
be prevented, but would only take a different shape, know-
ledge being superseded by suspicion. (Hear.) The conse-
quences flowing from such a system were worse than those
which existed at present. He would ask the hon. member
for Birmingham if his object was accomplished in the adop-
tion of the ballot, what means of detection and exposure
would ho have against malpractices ? When the hon. mem-
ber brought charges against a peer for practicing intimida-
tion at an election, ho must recollect to what measure re-
course had been had. He moved for a committee of the
house to inquire into all the circumstances connected with
the election at Peterborough. But could any result have
followed if there had been no means of detecting intimi-
dation? It was the knowledge that the house and the
country might obtain on the way in which. votes were
given, the passer of tracing intimidation, of following up
the wrong to its source, and afterwards punishing it, that
furaished the best means of preventing these evils. (dear.)
Great as would be the evils of secret voting, they would
have to meet till greater if they adopted the ballot, through
the means they would lose of detecting and exposing ille-
gal practices. The principle of public resposibility as to
all matters of public concern, and the bringing to bear the
control of public opinion upon these matters, was all-im-
portant. Whatever they did, unless they took care that a
roan was made responsible in whatever position he might
be, their plan must be faulty. The man who committed
a wrong act must be brought into the face of open day,
an 1 if they wished to encourage independence and virtue
they could best accomplish it by such means as he had in-
dicated. The system of secret voting might open the way
to deceit, treachery, distrust, and all evil passions. He
begged to assure the hon. member for Birmingham that on
that side of the house they were not afraid of the ballot as
tending to diminish their power, but in point of public
morality they thought it would bo dist), lvantageous to the
country. He felt fully convinced that the power
of public opinion must b a brought to bear on the exercise
of the franchise throughout the country, which would sus-
tain men when they were acting rightly, wild when they
acted wrongly would visit them with punishment. For
these reasons he could not assent to the introduction of the
bill. The amount of good prophesied from the adoption
of the ballot would, he believed, fail to be obtained, and
he preferred to look to public opinion as the best security
for the prevention of the evils which called forth com-
plaint. (Cheers.)
Lord J. RUSSELL—The hon. member for Birmingham
has alluded so much to me that I will venture to ask the
house to listen to a few observations from me. I have ad-
dressed the house frequently on this subject, and have
stated the reasons for my opinion, and with respect to the
principle of the b ).11ot I do not feel called upon to make
any observation. I agree, however, with the hon. mem-
ber for Birmingham that this is a change in the machinery
of the representation, but I consider it a change for the
worse. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) The hon. member
dwelt strongly on the evils of the existing system, but
when he came to the remedy he seemed to take almost
everything for granted. He assumed that the ballot
would cure all evils. I very much doubt that, because
I cannot but think that the passion imported into questions
agitating the public mind would exist as much as ever
under the ballot. I do not think that merely saying that
a man should giro his vote in secret would cause the evil
to cease. I have confidence in the natural candour and
truth of the people of England. I object to try a remedy
calculated !,to produce mischief, and which, if tried and
found to fail, would lead its advocates to contend that, if
from being permissive, it were made compulsory, the
remedy would be complete. With respect to the small
boroughs. I agree with the hon. member for Norfolk, that
the adoption of secret voting would open a great means of
corruption. I would ask how it is that the hon. mem-
hers for Bristol and Birmingham have not been able
to show us some satisfactory example of a country in
which the ballot is established, and which is more
free, and has more liberty of discussion than is possessed
by the people of England, notwithstanding the corruption
and intimidation which exist among us. The ballot has
been established in other countries of Europe, and nomi-
nally in the United States as well as in Victoria and Tas-
mania, but I cannot help thinking that if this contrivance
had succeeded so well, by promoting freedom, without
corruption, in the older countries of Europe, and in Ame-
rica, wo should have had the eases in Australia held up as
such splendid examples. It may be well for us to wait
for other examples treforo adopting torch a measure. We
are far better off than any of those countries. Au hon.
geetlemae has spoken of Hampden and Sidney, but I can-
het forget that thee) men who osteblished our liberties did
not r airline or adopt secrecy. (hear) If the hon. meur•
bor fir Birmingham will listen for a few minutes I will
answer the appeal he made in reference to my Reform Bill.
When I brought forward a Reform Bill I said there were
certain subjects it did not touch, and one of those was
certainly the subject of the ballot, with rspect to which I
said many ingenious arguments had been adduced, but I
hoped it would be always recollected that, while secret
ballot would prevent bad influences over the good, it would
also prevent good influences over the bad. (Hear, hear.)
Since that time, now 21 years ago, I have had many
opporqunities of meditating upon add discussing this sub-
ject; and last year, whsn I reconsidered the whole ques-
tion, I came to the result als unfevourable to the adoption
of such as system as I had come to before. The hen. gentle-
man says it is the opinion of the great majority of those
belonging to the Liberal party that the ballot should
adopted. I have never shown I hope, any intolerance on
the subject. A late lamented friend bf mine (Sir W.
Holsawor th) was an eeeer advocate fir the ballot, and yet
I recommended Lord Aberdeen that he should have a seat
in the Cabinet, and give us the advantage of his knowlsdge
and experience upon important matters. With
indeed,regard
to these subjects, I consider in these times—and,
ever since the Reform Bill
passed—it is verysifficult
together
for any party to form a Ministry, or to act
without having several questions which are styled_
to open
questions of policy. (Hear, hear). With regard the
question of church rates, a very distinguished member of
the present Ministry voted for their total abolition; and I
think the noble lord at the head of the Government and
his colleagues were quite right to permit that diversity of
opinion to exist. ,This is a question
of
fth
e machinery of
election, a'nd if Men. cannot act together because they
differ upon such a question, it seems to me there must be
a gieiat deal of InSoleeanee among those who refuse to act
together under such circumstances. (Hear, hear). The