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

THE SITNI_ LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JUNE 9, 1858.

complain that 'Lord Tom Noddies' are pushed into
of while other men of equal and perhaps better pre-
tensions, but not of such high birth, are excluded. Far
be it from him to endorse that opinion of the hon. mem-
ber for Middlesex, now thehon. member for Dover; and
he doubted if the hon. member for Dover agreed in the
opinion of the hon. member for Middlesex. (Laughter.)
The ballot, like other questions, has suffered from the se-
dative and soporific effects of office. He should be un-
grateful, however, if he had forgotten the able speech of
the late Sir W. Molesworth when in offioein favour of the
ballot. He felt how much he wanted the able aid of Mr.
Cobden aud other older supporters of the question when
the name of Gibson was not yet among their ranks. He
had read the evidence of Sir A. Cockburn when Mr.
Cockburn ; but when in office he was as silent as if he
had been under the influence of a dose of morphia.
(Laughter.) Again, where were the dulcet notes of
Bethell—(laughter)—who discoursed such eloquent
music to the men of Aylesbury? He could only apply to
him the words of the poet, "Cold is Cad waller's tongue."
(Laughter.) Bat now that the great Whig leader was
overthrown perhaps the time was come when his Liberal
friends might make themselves advantageously known
to their constituents. (Laughter.) It was not his inten-
tion on the present occasion to enter into a theoretical
discussion of the ballot, for the arguments in its favour
had never been answered. Nothing could be more lucid
thaa the arguments for the ballot ; and nothing more
delusive than the arguments used against it. They, far
the most part, consisted of guesses, loose assertions, and
baseless surmises. He had challenged, and he then chal-
lenged, any hon. gentleman to show that the operation
of the ballot had not been perfectly successful wherever
it has been tried. By the ballot he did not mean a mere
box and polling-booth, but emphatically secret voting.
That veteran reformer Gen. Thompson, in one of his
able pamphlets on this subject, ridiculed the idea of any-
thing like publicity being introduced where the ballot
was concerned, which be compared to a young girl who
bad no objection to play blind man's buff provided holes
were left for her eyes. Purity of election, peace, order,
and the choice of the most respectable. men invariably
accompanied the ballot.
Mr. MAINWARING rose to order. He wished to
know whether it was not out of order for the hon. gen-
tleman to read his speech. (Oh, oh.) It was very much
like it. (Oh, oh.)
Mr. BERKELEY said that if the hon. gentleman lent
him a pair of glasses he might be able to do that, but
without holding the paper close to his eyes he was not
able to do it. Attempts had been made to show that the
system of voting by ballot had been abused in America,
but he defied any hon. gentleman to point nut a State
in the American Union which abandoned that system
foi open voting. Mr. Nicholson said that it had been
entirely successful in Australia. He was much struck
by the argument of a working man at a meeting in fa-
weir of the ballot, who said that the working men al-
ways elected persons above themselves in education and
in position of life to fill offices in their clubs and associa•
Cons, and that it was not likely they would.do other-
wise if they had the ballot in respect of political elec-
tions. He would ask hoe. gentlemen to compare the 18
Presidents selected by the ballot in the United States
with any 18 successive monarchs of England, and he was
sure these who were elected by ballot would not suffer
by the comparison; He was not opposing a hereditary
monarchy, but he was opposing a hereditary ministry.
The Ambassadors of the American Union contrasted fa-
Tourably with the Ambassadors of this country, who
were chosen, not for their merit, but because they were
Court fates urites, or had influence in the House of Lords or
the House of Commons. The Americon Ambassador
never met our Ambassadors that they had not the best
of it. In gunnery and naval shipbuilding the Americans
were our superiors and models. Why was this ? Because
the people of England were not represented in that house,
which bore the purse of the nation, but an aristocracy
and a moneyed oligarchy ; because our executive was not
filled by men of talent, but by a fat and overweening ne-
potism, which crushed all the inventive power of the
country. The Australian papers-, from which he had full
extracts, admitted that the ballot had been successful
there. He met an Irish gentleman of a Tory family who
had been long resident in Australia, and on inquiring of
him whether any class in Australia were dissatisfied with
the ballot, he replied, "Only one—the Roman Catholic
priests, and they oppose it because it lessens their influ-
ence over the Roman Catholics. (Hear, and laughter.)
He recommended this fact to those gentlemen from Ire-
land who said that if the influence of the landlords was de-
stroyed by the ballot, there would remain nothing to
counteract the influence of the Roman Catholic priests in
Ireland, as the ballot would not affect spiritual power.
What was the position of the Irish elector ? Oa the one
side of him there was the spiritual influence of the priest,
and on the other the material influence of the landlord—
the landlord here, the priest there, the elector between
them—"pull devil, pull baker." (Laughter.) One of the
many quirks and quibbles used against the ballot was,
that if you gave the ballot to the electors with the pre
sent qualification they would refuse any extension of the
franchise. The noble lord the member for the city of
London yielded to those who used that argument. But
what took place in Australia One of the very first acts
which the ballot-elected parliament in Australia did was
to give such an extension of the suffrage as nearly
amounted to universal suffrage. (Hear.) But it would
be said, " Oh, but Australia is a remote colony." It was
a remote colony, but it was peopled by Anglo-Saxons,
and your Anglo-Saxons' in whom it was so becoming to
vote openly, adopted the ballot. (Hear.) He hoped the
example of the Anglo-Saxons of Victoria would be fol-
lowed by the Anglo-Saxons of the mother-country. One
of the advantages of raising this question of the ballot
was that it afforded an occasion of wringing before the
house and the country practical instances of the tyranny
arid malversation which occurred during the year in con-
nection with elections, and that there was no value in
the argument of those who raid that the aristocracy were
becoming politically more virtuous. He did not know
whether the right hon. gentleman the member for North-
ampton was in the house, but he wished to state, for his
edification and that cf the house, what took place at the
last election for North Northamptonshire. The two can-
didates, Mr. Hunt and Mr. Vernon, addressed the elec-
tors from waggoce. (Laughter) Mr. Hunt, according
to the Northampton Mercury, said "he would go against
the ballot through thick and thin." They perhaps knew
that at the different polling places the numbers polled
varied according to the circumstances of each locality.
Ia the Peterborough di trict 316 votes were recorded
for his opponent, and 161 for him (Mr. Hunt) ; but he
knew that he had 316 good wishes beside the 161 votes.
In Wellinborough, Mr. Vernon had 392 votes to his 251;
but they knew the sort of screw which was put upon the
people there, and that there was in that neighbourhood
a large landed proprietor who would put on a screw for
a Whig. (Laughter.) He (Mr. Hunt) knew of his own
knowledge that the screw was worked. [A Voice in the
cro xd--` Because you put it on yourself.']" Much laugh-
ter.) S much for Mr. Hunt. Then Mr. Vernon rk se,
and said "that the present election had thrown more
light on the necessity for the ballot than anything that
Lad recently taken place." Now Mr. Fitzpatrick Vernon
bad two brothers-ic-law in the house who voted against
the balls ; his Ether voted against it, and his father-
in-1 'w, who was the hereditary owner of two rotten
pocket boroughs. (Laughter.) The house would not for-
get the pompous sessional order which was passed by
them to prevent peers from interfering with the election
of members of the House of Commons. When they in-
sisted on that order being printed, was it not like the
case of Dogberry when he insisted on being recorded in
a particular manner ? (Laughter.) It was a pharisaical
pretence which was never intended to be acted upon. It
was notorious that one-third of the members of that house
were returned by peers who concerned themselves in
elections to that house. The peers laughed at them, ridi-
culed them, and, if he might venture to use such an ex-
pression, "took a sight" of them. (Laughter.) He held
in his hand a ietter from Lord Lilford to Mr. Hunt, and
a more rernarkab'e document, one more unconstitu-
tional, or show. ng more conten pt for the order of the
House of Commons, he nevelt-read. He says, " You
also forgive me for saying that neither by property nor
position should I think you qualified to represent it (the
cotary) in Parliament. Holding this opinion, without
airy disrespect towards yourself—(laughter)--I must re-
quest that my tenantry may not be canvassed for their
vo•ee in your favour." (Laughter.) He did not know
in what manlier the hon. member (Mr. Hunt) acted, hut
he (Mr. Berkeley) if in his place, would have canvassed
every one of Lord Li.Erd's tenantry. But let the
house not suppose that Mr. Hunt was without a
eau on his side. (Laughter.) If Mr. Vernon had
hie lofty L Hord, Mr. Hunt had his bold Bile-
cie ugh. (Laughter.) Tne address of his grace was not
Ea insolent or dictatorial in manner as the commuhica-

tion !row Lord Liiforcl, but it was plain enough. It was
addressed by hiy °race's steward to the tenantry, and
was as follow.; : Payne will be obliged by Mr. S.-
and-so attebdieg the election on Monday next. Mr.
Hunt b.s. ha goo d (Much laughter.) Who
vnuli take proceedings against Lord Liltord for what
be had done ? It he had been seen standing at the poll.
ing booth abd doing what his steward was doing no no-
tice would be taken of it, notwithstanding the standing
order of the house. Ferhaps it might be said, why not
the hon. member fur Bristol take proceedings. (Hear.)
His answer to that was that be was taking proceedings.
(Hear.) He was pointing out the proper and coustitu
tioual way in which Lord Lilford's voting machines might
be freed from his lordship's power—be was pointing out
to them the mode by which, instead of passing a phari-
saical order which meant nothing, they could do a great
act of juctice to the people and of credit to themselves.
(Hear, hear.) He had usually been in the habit of

referring to recent elections, and quoting from the
speeches of the varioci candidates who had given
opinions on the ballot. ifs appealed to the house whe-
ther he had ever done this in a party spirit, or treated it

as a party question, or even raised the question with
whom he acted, at the expense of those be opposed.
(11"-) There had recently been several elections con-
,,icluelit on the accossion of Lord D:rby's Government,
and he had been enabled to get the opinions of a few
members of the Government on the subject. The right
bon. gentleinao the Chancellor of the Exchequer had
been asked several questions; he, however, felt no diffi.-
ty in what the
ject.He made
yaatiZarectltai Americana
neavillhigeehn,eralising the sub-
d of the Tor coming from toe
Re
said he had no rea-
iwn to object to.
w
?uld oppose the measure,
because it would tend to diminish j
ust influence of
property. In that sentence was i the
ntained the real es
sauce of the opposition to the nleas a re—
n y
right dreadediht ho too
.
lose their influence. That langueofeotthhee
gentleman did very well addressed to
farmers, but if he repeated it there he ZuatirYmen and
.d be asked
what were his views as to the due and constitutional i
licence of property. That influence he (Mr. Berkeley)
wished to El aintain. It was only the undue and n ii; •
influence he wished to diminish. From the speech Ofthste
right hon. gentleman he turned to that of a noble lord
(Lord Naas.) He was asked whether he would object to
enter into an inquiry into the working of the ballot in
Australia. He said he would not. That was a remarkable
*youth for "a Tory. (A laugh.) He saw no difference

between the noble lord and many who eat around him.
The noble lord continued to say that in Australia the
supporters of the ballot were the men who lived in the
towns ; the landholders—the squatters, as they were
called—were opposed to it. That statement of the noble
lord be (Mr. Berkeley) could unequivocally contradict.
Mr. Nicholson, the founder of the ballot in Australia,
had answered the noble lord, and stated that he had
been returned by a rural district, the county of North
Berke, containing 8,000 electors., There was only one
other argument to which he would refer that had been
used by a member of the Government, for whom he and
the whole house had the highest respect, he meant the
President of the Poor Law Board. In a speech addressed
to the electors of North Wilts, Mr. Sotheron-Estcourt
had opposed the ballot on a rather new ground, the pre-
valence of original sin. (Great laughter.) The right
my
hon. gentleman said, "The reason why the ballot in
eyes is offensive and to be deprecated is this—there is in
the heart of every single one of us such an element of
wickedness, and such a proneness to act contrary to
whatever is good and worthy of approbation, that for
the due and proper discharge of every trust we find that
publicity is the very best possible guarantee." That was
the doctrine of original sin ; every one of them at their
birth inherited the fallen nature of Adam, they had not
the fear of God before their eyes, but, moved and insti-
gated by the devil, they delighted in everything that
was bad, and abhorred everything that was good ; ergo,
says the right hon. gentleman, they must have open
voting. (A. laugh.) He could not admit that was good
l.'gic. If they were all of them miserable sinners, elec-
tors and non-electors, how could the supervision of
30,000 nomelectoral sinners have any good effect on
1,000 electoral scamps ? A flattering picture the right
honourable gentleman drew of them. What a set
of blackguards they must let into their clubs, and
what a set of mauvais sujete they must admit into
the Bank of England. (Laughter.) He was lately
at a meeting for the election of a chaplain to Dulwich
College. Three hundred clergymen had sent in applica-
tions. Lord Stanley was in the chair. Like the rest
of the nobility he appeared to have a partiality for old
bat voting, and took the poll that way. Of course the
whole election was tainted with original sin, and instead
of electing an orthodox clergyman of the Church of Eng-
land, they must have got a Papist, or a Puseyite, which
meant the same thing. (Laughter.) There had lately
been an election of vestrymen in Belgravia, in St.
George's Without, of course by ballot. The candidates
were Lord Ernest Bruce, Gen. Sir W. Codrington, and
Phipps. (Great laughter.) Not Phipps the warrior, and
slayer of men—not the knight of the Bath—(laughter)
—but a peaceful Phipps, a slayer of sheep, a knight of
the cleaver. (Continued laughter.) The result of the
election was that Lord Ernest Bruce was at the head of
the poll, Phipps was second, Sir W. Codrington lost his
election. Now, according to the right hon. gentleman,
they should look on Lord Ernest Bruce and Phipps as
miserable sinners, elected by original sin, but on Gen.
Codrington as a perfect saint. (Laughter.) He had so
often answered the argument as to the franchise being a
trust that he would not now refer to it ; but if hon. gen-
tlemen used that argument he hoped they would tell the
house in what did a breach of electoral trust consist. He
had only to thank the house for having allowed him to
makeso long a speech on so hackneyed a subject. (Hear.)
It was a :.abject of great importance, and he trusted his
friends would express their opinions on it. (Hear, hear.)
Ito time was approaching in which they were about to
enter on their great profi;gate Saturnalia. The orgies
were in preparation. Shabby-genteel men were to be seen
about the Carlton. The Whig whippers-in were looking
for some respectable gentleman to supply the place of
the lamented Mr. Coppock. Men in the moon were pre-
paring to descend on boroughs in silver moonbeams. In
the country, the owners of the machinery were oiling the
cogs and greasing the wheels for the work. Influence
would again beat work ; intimidation would stalk, and
drunkenness stagger through the land. He would ap-
peal from the House of Commons to the independent
electors of Great Britain and Ireland ; at the hustings
let them have a Shibboleth for every man—elect those
who can pronounce it ; those who cannot whether they
come in the guise of Whig or Tory, reject. Let the
Shibboleth be " The Ballot." (Hear, hear.)
Mr. P. W. MARTIN seconded the motion, and in
doing so hoped that the house would not ignominiously
reject the resolution as had been previously done. He
could not understand how it could possibly happen that
the salutary influence of property could be affected in
any manner by the adoption of the ballot, although he
could readily understand how the abuee of that authority
could be checked by a system of secret voting. The hon,
member proceeded to refer to a speech delivered in the
southern division of the county of Nottingham by the
chairman of the election committee, in which it was
broadly laid down that it was the duty of the landlords
to be down upon any tenant who might happen to change
his political opinions after being accepted as a tenant.
He had been engaged in at least five contested elections
and at four of these it was clearly understood to be the
rule that the tenants on an estate were bound to vote
aecording to the opinions and wishes of the landlords.
(Hear, hear.) The preamble of the bill was verbatim the
words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Lord
Chelmsford, and therefore deserved very serious consi-
deration on the opposite side of the house. He denied
that there was anything un-English in the vote by ballot
—it was used at clubs, at municipal elebtions, and an act
passed 150 years since, in the reign of Queen Anne, ex-
pressly enacted that the election of the town councillors
should be triennially and by ballot. (Hear.) The ballot
in Australia at the last election had caused the Govern-
ment candidate to be elected over the popular candidate
and it was universally declared by the populace that the
failure was due to the ballot, with which the populace
was thoroughly discontented in purpose. He would sup-
port any other plan, which would equally secure the in-
dependence of electors.

Si quid novisti rectius istis,
Candidus imperti—si non his utere mecum.

Mr. HUNT would not follow the hon. member into
original sin as he was sitting beside the best au hority on
the subject (Lord Palmerston). (A laugh.) But he did
object to a person dropping a ball into the box, and then
coming away and telling a lie.

Mr. S. ESTCOURTsaid that society was interested
in knowing how the elector performed his functions. He
was likewise for publicity, thinking that secrecy under
the p►esent circumstances would be productive of. mis-
chief. He might almost say that if they could achieve
secrecy, he should approve it. But they could not
achieve it—they could not shut up the mouth of the
voter himself or his friends, or hie relations. It was
impossible for any man so to exercise his functions in
this country as to conceal it from the eyes of hie neigh-
bours. He held that the franchise was a public trust,
and he had never heard it spoken of iu any other term.,
and the constitution would soon be at an end if it should
ever come to be considered otherwise. He believed the
ballot never could secure secrecy. He based his objec-
tion to the ballot on this, that the franchise was a trust
and that trust ought t be exercised openly. He did not
believe the ballot could put an end to bribery and cor-
ruption. The best way of preventing bribery and inti-
midation was by an alteration in the present electoral
districts. The true remedy was not in a little crotchet
like the ballot, but in an alteration in the electoral
system. _

- Su. A. ELTON said, first of all the ballot would not
work, and Wa4 therefore a sham. Then they were told
that it would work, but that it would degrade the con-
stitution ; and the% they were told that it was a Con-
servative measure. Now, how were these arguments
co-existent with each other ? It bad been said that we
were becoming more virtuous, and that bribers was at a
discount. He believed such was not the case, but that
members of that house were becoming more skilful in
concealing their delinquencies. With regard to the fran-

chise being a trust, no doubt it was, but the &enter was
not answerable to the non-elector, but to his own con-
science only. It was abso'utely essential that there
should be no artificial restraint on the elector. He re.
pu,liated the argument that an extension of the fran-
chi 3e would place it in the hands of those who would de-
sire to aesail all property. He had confidence in the
honour and conscientiousness of his countrymen. He
believed the ballot was the only means by which they
could protect the dependent classes. Tee people of the
country would never believe in the tiu!li of the Whigs,
unless they supported the ballot.
Mr. BENTINCS could not understand how any one
could support the ballot. He had never hear 2 an argu-
toGnt in favour of the ballot. It had been said that the
ballot had succeeded in America. He trusted that such

success would never be --seen in this country, if such
scenes am occasionally take place in the American legia
lature were to be taken as part of that success. The
proper title to a bill for the ballot ought to be a bill for
the prevention of the reaction of bribery. Under the
bellot it would be impossible to prevent bribery, which
would then go on for ever on a wholesale system.
(Great laughter.) That was an argument that met the
I whole case. Under the ballot every borough would have
thewouldlegis-
laturetaking i
z c
have debarredwh o
supported itself frtehme
that.. Those
ballot, therefore, Were the advocates cf corruption.
General THOMPSON said
the advocates of the bal-
let did not desire to stop the
proclaim his vote to all the world if he pleased ; but the
object of the ballot was to allow the voter to secretly
if
vote
if he pleased. He trusted that hon,
gentlemen opposite
would soon change their views upon this subject. The
country expected much from them, Hitherto their ex-
peciations had not been met with disappointment.
Mr. A. B. HOPE said the hon. gentlemen who had
submitted the motion bad at all events shown courage
in appealing to the example of America on the subject.
The ballot bad been tried on thirty-five millions of in-
habitants in France. What had been its effect there ?
Perhaps the supporters of the ballot did not think there
should be freedom of the press in this country, or i„de_
p-ndence of the courts of law. The effects cf the ballot
in France bad been to suppress the press, raise the army,
and abolish the independence of the courts of law. I.
was in the cause of liberty that he protested against the
ballot, and he did so with the example of France pro-
minently before his eyes. He believed that the screw
d
had really been placed on the 101. boueeholder ene
-' p i
eyed
by the manufacturing interest=. The ballot would
the working man in the dilemma of either having to tell
the truth and lose his employment, or tell a lie and
keep it. Another evil consequence would he that the
present incitement to vote at all would be wanting, for
under a system of open voting each individual in the
community felt a pride in letting his neighbours know
that he really possessed political predilections. The ex-
periment had signally failed in America, where the cha-
racter of the individual was not thought of. (Hear.)
Sir G. C. LEWIS said that the friends of the ballot
Contended that under it intimidation would cease. I s
ipponents' on the other hand, maintained that the
xeroise of the franchise was a solemn trust. But would
he ballot produce secrecy ? Reasoning from the opera-'
ion of the system in America, it could be proved that 1
Lite ballot did not secure secrecy.'
(Hear.) With the ex-
I eption of one State in the United States, where sealed
• . 1

envelopes were employed, every publicity was given to
the proceedings of an election. The late Governor of
Connecticut had addressed a letter to the Ballot Society,
in which he said that although many voters so contrived
their ballot papers that they were not made public, the
majority of voters in that State paraded their ballot
papers, preferring that the side on which they voted
should be known. The general practice of voting in the
United States—the country referred to as the model for
imitation—the country of native talent—the country of
revolvers—(a laugh)—was paraded as the one which
ought to be followed. (No, no.) In that country, how-
ever, as he had shown, the voting was practically open.
The mode of voting in the East India House was also
extolled by the advocates of the ballot, but the system
there employed was really quite as open to analysis as
the machinery for taking votes for members of Perna-
et\ent. But was it possible to keap the fact as to which
way constituents would vote a secret ? If not, and the
ballot were adopted, how could candidates be permitted
to canvass ? (Hear, hear.) If the ballot were to become
the law, the whole system of canvassing, the whole of
our electoral system, must be given up. Under a sys-
tem of optional secrecy the door would be opened to
coercion, and upon the supporters of the motion the
onus lay to prove that the ballot would insure secrecy.
(Hear, hear, and cries for a division.)
Mr. MARSH had every reliance on the character of
the Australian colonists, and that it would work out the
destiny of the Anglo-Saxon race, but he was firmly con-
vinced that the ballot had worked injuriously to the
colonists of those lands. The source of a!1 freedom was
responsibility. (Hear.) According to the hon. member
fi r Bristol, the ballot had insured "respectability" in
Australia, but he (Mr. Marsh) had been credibly in-
formed that one of the first persons elected for the
colony of Victoria took his seat in his shirt sleeves.
(Laughter.) The honourable member proceeded, in a
humorous vein, to read certain proceedings in the Vic-
toria Legislature, the style of speech of the principal
interlocutor causing considerable laughter. A Mr.
" G.," in one of his debates, expressed a wish "not
only that the typhus fever might sweep away the
ministry for the benefit of the colonists (laughter), but
that the whole house might share the same fate"—a
wish for which the speaker was called to order by the
Attorney-General. (Laughter.) The Attorney-General
was then told that he might "grin," but that ho was
" a miserable penny-a-liner," who had condescended to
write for some blackguard newspaper, and that he had
stolen his (the interlocutor's) spoons—language for which
the chairman ruled him "oat of order." (Laughter.)
In another legislature one member wished another
" dead," then said he didn't, and deprecated the
blandishments of "soft sawder." (Renewed laughter.)
Mr. Marsh then continued to speak against the motion
of the honourable member for Bristol, stating his belief
that bribery and intimidation were daily increasing in
this country, which had set its face against such prac-
tices. (Hear, hear.) If ever it was proved to him that
such practises were on the increase, he would vote for
the ballot. If ever the ballot was introduced, however,
he believed it would be through the wrongdoing of its
supporters.
Mr. AYRTON claimed the indulgence of the house, as
neither the noble lord the member for Tiverton, nor the
noble lord the member for London, were prepared to
grapple with this question. For the last 150 years
penal statutes had been passed to secure the freedom
of election, and yet Parliament refused to sanction a
means of escape which would render all those penalties
unnecessary. The system of penal and repressive laws
had arrived at its climax of absurdity (cries of " divide,
divide"). Tne ballot was not proposed as a principle
in itself, but to give to the principle of free election (re-
newed cries for a division). With what would the ballot
do battle ? Primarily with bribery (oh, oh). What a
mockery was it to say that bribery was not resorted to,
when it was well known that towards the end of an
election votes were purchased wholesale. (Oh, oh).
The ballot would next deal with intimidation. (Oh, oh).
He was well aware that this was a still more tender
point with hon. members. (Renewed cries of "oh, oh,"
aid calls fur a division). Secret voting would prevent
intimidation. (Oh, oh). Balancing the inconvenience
at-ached to the ballot with those bound up with the
present system, there could not be a doubt that the
former were insignificant. As the system was practised
in Australia, it was utterly impossible to divine the
manner in which a man might vote. The plan of the
honourable member for Bristol was equally perfect.
The honourable member, amidst the impatience of the
house, which induced him to taunt honourable members
with making a noise in order that they might not hear
the truth, demurred to the doctrine of a member of the
present Ministry, that "Education, Property, and In-
dependence" were to be the electoral tests. His own
election had not been an affair of influences. At that
election political questions had been examined by men
as intelligent as those whom he now addressed. (Oh, oh,
and repeated calls for a division).
Lord PALMERSTON—I am anxious to state a few
reasons why I cannot agree with my hon. friend, whose
speech I allow, with the hon. member for Norfolk,
although very humorous, was more deficient in argu-
ment then any of his former speeches on the same sub-
ject. The question is whether vote by ballot shall be
permissive or compulsory. If permissive, it will be a
trap to the timid ; it compulsory, it will be a gag upon
the freedom of the voter. Whether they be employers,
or customers, or landlords, they will pnderstand why a
vote is given in secret, and the consequence to the voter
will be the same whether the vote be given openly or
secretly. If the secret vote be compulsory, it is impoa-
restrictions upon the liberties of the electors of Eng-
land quite incompatible with our national feeling and
the principles of our constitution. But you must go
further ; you must make it penal for a voter to state
how he has voted—(no, no, and hear)—yon must pre•
vent canvassing—(no, no)—as your object is to prevent
it being known how a particular individual votes. Take
the case of a shopkeeper, a tenant, or workman. His
vote is asked. He says, "I cannot state ho el I shall
vote. I shall take advantage of the law, or I shall act
according to the law, and give nay vote in secret."
Would a person exercising any influence be satisfied with
such an answer? If a person makes a promise and
breaks it, it is introducing a system of falsehood and dis-
simulation, instead of promoting those objects which
are to be promoted by this bill. (No, no.) I defy you
by any human meals, by ballot.b_x or other contrivance,
to prevent a person who wishes to know from ascertain-

ing how an elector has given his vote. Publicity is an
essential principle of the British constitution. Tne elec-
tor has a trust, or why do you punish him for selling his
vote, since every man has a right to do what he likes
with his own ? The principle upon which bribery is
punished is that the vote is a trust, and that the voter
has no right to part with the trust for his own private
advantage. All our political functions are exercised in
open day, open to all the consequences, and there is no
security for the exercise of political functions unless pub-
lic opinion can be brought to bear upon them. Those
who seek for secrecy in one political function ought to
extend it to many others to which I am sure they would
not be disposed to extend them. Vete by ballot would
put an end to party spirit, and party spirit is an essen-
tial element in the working of the British constitution.
On former occasions we had the example of the United
States given to us to fellow. The hon. gentleman went
to such a length as to attribute to the ballot all those
qualities of inventive powers and all the prosperity which
tee United States enjoyed, for unless he went to that
length he meant nothing. Setting aside the United
States, they now take refuge in the Australian colonies.
In the United States there is no secret voting. It is
by ticket voting, because it is customary to elect a num-
ber of officers at the same time, and it is convenient to
place their names upon one ticket instead of voting
several times. They do not pretend to say that their
votes are secret. And I say that the feelings of the
people of this country would be opposed to secret vot-
ir g. (Hear.) Do you think that the Blues and the Yel-
lews would go mute and colourless to the poll? It is not
in the nature of Englishmen to do it—(hear)—and if
you accomplish your object you will strike a blow at
the national spirit of the country. I will take the
example of our North American colonies. neighbours of
the United States, and acquainted with the working of
the ballot there. Have they adopted it ? No ; they have
seen the advantage of our systsm, and follow' it them-
selves. Your law will not accomplish what you intend
it should acconepli,h. Great frauds will be occasioned,
even in the ballot-box, which I defy you to prevent. It
will not accomplish the secrecy you wish for, and if it
did it would strike a great blow at the country ; and as
it will not afford the pro,ectioh you desire, and as it will
inflict a great injury upon the public spirit of the people,
I cannot recede from the vote which I have always given
upon this question. (Cheers )
Mr. BRIGHT said he would endeavour to take up the
time of the house for a few minutes only. He had not hoard
this question discussed for some three years, but during

his absence from the house ho had foraaed a rather unf.:

vourable impression, from reading the reports in the news'

papers, of the way in which it hal been received by the
house, who were disposed, he thought, to deal rather un-
fairly with his hon. friend the member for Bristol. Trey
_ _

seemed to have treated him somewhat rudely when he
brought this subject forward, as though it were not large
enough to occupy the consideration of the House of Com-
mons, and he (Mr. Bright) thought he had observed alittle
of this feeling to-night in what had fallen from the hon.
member for the Tower Hamlets. (Hear.) But he would
beg to say that this was not a small subject; it was not
one that they could hustle out of the door of the house,
and say they would have nothing to do with it, because
nobody in the country really cared anything about it.
(dear, hear.) There never was a greater mistake than this
conclusion. He admitted that it was rather an unpleasant
question, if that were a reason why they should wish to
dismiss it. But he had seen many unpleasant questions
discussed there which had at length come to b 3 welcomed
i❑ the house by very large majorities, who had admitted
that their previous conduct upon them had been en-
tirely wrong. If they wanted to know what sort
of
many reformers whenth ebYu
quektion it was, let them ask any portion
:site wishfor Parliamentary reform. Hon. gentlemen theoppo-
` Pmpula.tion of the country who had expressed
tawstehtnhetyo ts
mustoe their
es
eactoq
nsi
see
of the house,
constituents
histte
'(1I
enoughr: Bt' dor notkg to
w 8 sidesthato
this was a very important
andif question with their constituents
and the public,
hers of the house were theyeywished to know how far mem
ninny members of the influenced by it, let them ask how
favour. Why,
nukes
tan 2
house had recorded their votes in its
of Commons, who, some 12 months
of this very House
make the noble lord the member
sfaorfiv were assembled to
(cheers)—and came to this house to supportto dictator—
(cheers)—and
votedtor—
in favour of a proposition which he had treatedm't •
idiots
to-night as
one which could only be advocated by •
tots or fanatics.
(4, Oh, oh," and cheers.) He wanted to put to the house
two or three points on the subject, and he wouldnot go to
Australia—he was now unwilling to introduce anything
into this country which was growing up across the Atlan-
tic, or on the other side of the Pacific. They required it
for their own interests and for their own security, Was
there a country in the world in which there was so much
colonial wealth by the side of such deep and miserable po-
verty as this ? (Hear.) Did not the majority of the people

—whether in the counties or in the boroughs, consist of
persons who were struggling in business, and under the
pressure of a fierce competition ? And was it not clear from
this that this was peculiarly a country in which unfair in-
fluence might be expected at elections ; and if a remedy
could be suggested, was it not a subject which the house
might be asked, at least, fairly to consider, and, if just, to
apply it. i(Cheers.) The noble lord the member for Tiver-
ton had spoken of the force of party feeling which was ne-
cessary to carry on the Government of thaeountry, and he
had spoken of the manly spirit and greaTstrength of that
feeling. But if that party feeling be strong must
not the position of men be raised in a correspond-
ing degree ? Did ho not recollect what it was for which
they had been contending ? Some ten years ago
there was a great question before the country—the
question of the corn laws. We were all, continued the
hon. member, exasperated upon that question. You com-
municated your wishes to the public. We charged upon
you crimes and misdemeancnrs which you had not com-
mitted. But great feeling was excited, and if the elections
on your side were influenced by your endeavours, so they
were also by the Anti-Corn Law League. When those
struggles were impending mans' feelings were under the
apprehension, on your part, that you were going to be
ruined, and upon our part that we were going to rid the
country of an unjust and iniquitous law. There was exas-
peration on both sides ; but when there was so great
wealth on one side, and so much struggling poverty, temp-
tation, and trial on the other, I say that power was brought
to bear upon that poverty, and the wealthy and the power-
ful acted upon the weak and the defenceless. (Cheers.)
In thousands and tens of thousands of cases, to my certain
knowledge, men went up to the polling-booth, not with a
lie in their mouths, but when they were asked how they
voted, by what they then and there did they committed
themselves in the face of Heaven to a lie as gross as ever
was uttered in the world. (Cheers.) And look at the
great prize for which you were contending the other day,
if there had been a general election, in consequence of the
vote of confidence, which did not come off. (Cheers.)
lion. gentlemen who were very anxious to continue in the
Government have made a very great struggle to bring
themselves back, and a friend or two with there. Thera
would have been abundance of party spirit and manly
feeling-- (ironical and counter cheers)--and what would
have been the result ? I don't say you would have fought
harder than we should on our side. But the harder the
battle the greater the victory—the richer the prize the
greater would have been the struggle— the greater the
temptation to bribery the greater the incentive to undue
influence. (Cheers.) In your elections, what is there that
would have enabled the weak to shelter themselves from
your power ? Their virtue would have succumbed to the
influences brought to bear upon them. (Cheers.) It is
not the noble lord the member for Tiverton who wants the
ballot. (Cheers.) I never advised the ballot for the sake of
the noble lord. I advised the ballot for the poor, the de-
fenceless, and the weak. It is the shelter which common
sense and common morality have afforded in every coin-
munity which has granted to its members the right to ex-
ercise the elective franchise. (Cheers.) And if we had never
seen anything of elections in this country--if we had only
studied the question in our closets, from what we have
read we should be led to the conclusions to which I have
endeavoured to lead the house. I believe it is a farce to
bring any new evidence before the house, because with re-
gard to the facts of this case every member on this side of
the house and the other is equally convinced on the sub-
ject. But I have here a letter which was handed to me by
a gentleman who, while he lived, had a great deal to do
with election matters—thelate Mr. Coppock--who, though
he was connected with many election operations which I
should be very sorry to defend, and which I greatly regret
to believe to have taken place in the country of which I
am a citizen—yet in public and in private was always the
advocate of any measure which should make it possible to
work elections in this country without impurity and cor-
ruption ; and he bAieved there was no weapon whatever
by which you could at all hope to strike down undue in-
fluence and corruption at elections like the ballot. (Fleur,
hear.) The hon. member then read the note, which was
dated Portobello, July 23—no year—and addressed to a
Mr. Welder ; and was in the following terms: - " I under-
stand that you are in doubt which way to vote, and I de-
sire you to vote for Mr. Fitzgerald. If you don't do this,
you leave my farm." (Laughter-) That was very laconic;
no tenant whatever, however obtuse, could mistake its
meaning. That letter was written to a farmer. Mr. Cop-
pock also gave him (llrr Bright) at the same time two or
three extracts from letters written by solicitors seeking to
be employed as agents. One was this, "I wish to know
whether lam to be retained again for Mr. —. I am
offered 25 guineas from the other side ; and if I don't hear
from you by two o'clock, I shall accept the offer." Another
was—" As every vote is of importance, I don't wish to
have or take any retainer ; as in the case of a scrutiny it
might be inconvenient ; and I must rely upon you for pay-
ment on the same scale as last time." Another solicitor
wrote to say that his father-in-law had considerable inte-
rest iu the borough, and that several of his men had votes
which they would give to Mr. A--, but that a retainer
would be expected. Other letters went to the same effect
—offering services and expecting retainers ; being profes-
sional men they could not be expected to work for nothing,
Now he would ask the house the reason why these solicitors'
votes wore worth 25 guineas each ? It was because .these
men turned the screw ; they knew their influence over the
list of voters, and that A, B, C, and D had small or large
mortgages upon their property, and they knew that many
of the voters were under struggling circumstances; in fact,
they knew the private affairs of the larger number of elec•
tors, and before they were so essential to the candidate ;
and, therefore, when they were paid 25 guineas they got
more at the marrow of the subject than any other man
could do, and thus it was that all this machinery of lawyers
became apparent; and thus it was that the evidence showed
this intolerable working of the screw. (Cheers.) He said
the noble lord the member for Tiverton did not want the
ballot. Well, rich people did not want many things that
the poor required. Laws were not so much in necessity for
the rich as for the poor, and it was for the defence of the
poor voters that they asked the house Lo grant the protec-
tion of the ballot. Out of doors the subject was much dis-
cussed, and would any man say that those who advocated
the ballot did not represent as .snormoctot wow:aunt of opinion
in the country? (Cheers.) Did they think the poor voters
could not batter tell where the shoe pinched than the noble
lord the member for Tiverton? (Cheers.) Of course they
could. There was no questiou which would attract t o its
banner so many persons as the ballot. They could pass n
Reform Bill 'without making it a part. They had been
given to un lerstan I that something in the shape of a Re-
for.n Bill was in the contemplation of the Government ;
but he (Mr. Bright) did not place much reliance on the
statements. Governments did not live long now-a-days,
and perhaps the Government might not live to next ses-
sion; an 1 if they did live they might not be able to keep
the promise. But he bogged to tell the Government -and
they had already exhibited some good points—that if they
should introduce a Reform Bill, and not add to it a clause
conferring vote by ballot on the people, they would firel
existing constituencies show no enthusiasm for their mea-

sure. (Cheers.) The great body of the people would regard
such a bill as another mode of subjecting them to another
species of degradation. (Cheers.) The noble lord the mem-
ber for London once brought in a Reform Bill, so called—
though it was no Reform Bill at all—and subsequently
thousands of people, at a meeting at Stockport, declared
that the franchise would bo of no use to them without the
ballot was included with it, because hundreds of these men
worked for ono particular employer, or one firm of em-
ployers; and although he (Mr. Bright) did not believe that
manufacturers would exercise this power more than land-
lords in counties did, yet when they came to a fierce and
exciting contest he would not trod any poor or defenceless
countryman to the tender mercies of either a landlord or a
manufacturer. (Cheers.) There were several members who
proposed a reform in Parliament, but he believed the noble
lord the member for London was the most sincere in his
convictions upon the question, though at present he (Mr.
(
Bright) confessed he thought the noble lord felt afraid of
member
disturbingmb er fo
ro
Tivertonther thin things.
been paraded through the r, . hear.) The noble lord the
coun-
try as a great reformer ; not only was he to settle things
abroad, but he was to do everything at home. Well, every-
thing abroad was left in confusion, and nothing at home
was dope by the noble lord— (cheers)—and the noble lord,
in answer to the hon. member for Finsbury (Mr. Dun-
combe), with a frankness which he (Mr. Bright) ad-
mired, admitted that the Government of which he was
the head had not prepared a Reform Bill. Thee
might have talked about it, but there was no bill
ready ; he was in favour of a bill for reform, and if he had
been in office he would have brought one in. He (Hr.
Bright) was not going to make a charge against the noble
lord for not keeping his promise. (Haar.) Then the right
hon. gentleman opposite was in favour of reform, and there
were many persons who thought that the bill of the present
Government would be a good one. At any rate the present
Government wore getting 111 of property qualification, and
that would be a great achievement. (Cheers.) Hon. mem-
bers oNeosite were more reason able than they formerly were,
and were not half so frightened as they used to be when he
(Mr. Bright) first knew them. (Laughter.) Thus the right
hon. gentleman and the two noble lords were going to re-
deem their promises ; and the right hon. gentleman the
member for the University of Oxford (Hr. Gladstone) had
agreed to a reform bill when a member of Lord Aberdeen's
Government.. But would the Reform Bill be for the
people? They must please that great body of the people
who since 1832 had been increasing in loudness and uuani-
mity on this question ; and was it not a fact that every pe-
tition presented in favour of Parliamentary Reform had
_asked talia.vo included therein the ballot 2 (Cheers-) W"
it not a fact also that every public meeting, attended by
hundreds and thousands of the people, resolved to have the
ballot. (Cheers.) Thera were men in the country who had
thought of this subject a great deal more than the noble
lord the member for Tiverton had considered it, and they
thought that without exception secret voting should be
made the cardinal point in the new Reform Bill. The
noble for I might get up an I say that he had the argu-
ments act nauseant, but the people had not them to that
measure ; and they knew that if they rapped louder and
extent. (Cheers.) They
longer the house would listen to them as they had done
on other questions of great importance to the interests
and welfare of this country. (Cheers.) He decle.red that
measure. It was, he were determined to have this
democratic
ho had never advocated the ballot as a
but because he helievedknitew;o
the poor man, but if it were established to-morrow, he
did not believe it would very materially cbange
.the
posi-
tion of members at the opposite side of the house. He ad-
vocated the ballot not because it was a democratic measure
bills to reform the representation of the and just, and ho
hundred
thebe charter of of freedom to
was persuaded that if Parliament were to pass 3
people, none of
them would do so much to effect that object as the little
bill of two or three clauses which the hon. gentleman the
member for Bristol had invited them to pass that day.
The party with whom he (Mr. Bright) acted were in a little
difficulty, which he would endeavour to explain. The
noble lord the member for Tiverton —(laughter)-- that was
nut the difficulty —had been Rime Minister for three
g
years, and had occupied at successive periods many high
offices in the State. He could not avoid showing his con-
tempt for the o inions of thereat majority of those who
had kept him iu office. Tim noble lord the member for
London had also been Premier and the loader of the great
Whig party, but the sp ,ils of office had fallen to his lot to
some extent as to that of the noble lord the member for
Tiverton and his colleagues. If the Liberal party were to
act under leader: is a great party, it stood to reason that
there must be sine° sort of accord between those who led
and those who followed. (Hear.) How could the Liberal
party follow the noble lords an i right hon. gentlemen who
had no respect, for their followers ? lie admired the con-
sisteucy shown by the noble lord the member for the City
of London, but he had lived lone. enough to see consistency
advocated with great disadvantage to the country, and in-
consistency attended with great advantage.
principle, but
upon the ballot not so much as a great
He looked
merely as a machinery for taking votes. It had been tried
with advantage in Belgium, in America, in Australia, and
other pieces, and he was in favour of trying it here. He
a ts
hsthere
great
mmeuncth,
did not therefore think, looking to the experience which
we had of it in other places, that it would be inconsistent
ufonraanni hmity on. member
of
doors to
in
he was willing to try it, although he might think that
the good likely to arise from it was very gravely exag-
sfaayvo thatur
of

Berated. The noble lord the member for Tiverton
could, of course, take any time he pleased, but the
action of parties at his (Mr. 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, hoar,) He wished it to
be understood that he did not speak in anger against the
noble lord the member for Tiverton. (Laughter.) He
hal no such sentiments towards 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
Somersetshire (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 fears, 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 ho was of opinion that they were enti-
tled to the consideration of the house. Tho people now
looked forward to the house with greater confidence
than at any previous pericd in the history of Parliament.
(Hear, hear.) It had done 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 afair
and candid 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 the lower Opposition
benches)—and, secondly, that the arguments on the ques-
t.cn had been so 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 (Hr. 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 qeestion before them was one of
political machinery, while th latter hoe. gentlemanhad 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 au 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 had 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 around 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 neighbours, and in-
timidation, even of the ballot were adopted could not
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 olject was accomplished in the adop-
tion of the ballot, what means of detection and exposure
would he have against malpractices ? When the hon. mem-
ber brought charges against a peer for practising intimida-
tion at an election, he 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 power of tracing intimidation, of following up
the wrong to its source, and afterwards punishing it, that
furnished the best means of preventing these evils. (Hear.)
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
man 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,
and 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 be disadvantageous to the
country. He felt fully convinced that the power
of public opinion must be brought to bear on the exercise
of the franchise throughout the country, which would sus-
tain men when they were acting rightly, and 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 ballot 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. Ido 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-
, bars 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, anti in Ame-
rica, we 'should have bad the cases in Australia held up as
such splendid examples. It may be well for us to wait
for other examples before adopting such a measure. We
are far better off than any of those countries. An hon.
gentleman has spoken of Hampden and Sidney, but I can-
not forget that those men who established our liberties did
not require or adopt secrecy. (Rear.) If the hon. mem•
ber for Birminghern will listen for a few minutes I Rill
answer the appeal he made in reference to my Reform Bill.
When I brought for ward 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 ha I 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 27 years ago, I have had many
opportunities of meditating upon and discussing this sub-
ject; and last year, when I reconsidered the whole ques-
tion, I came to the result as unfavourable to the adoption
of such a system as I had come to before. The hon. gentle-
ruan says it is the opinion of the great majority of those
belonging to the Liberal party that the ballot should be
adoptd. I have never shown, I hope, any intolerance on
the subject. A late lamented friend of mine (Sir W.
11.1oLsworth) was an eager advocate for the ballot, and yet
I recoaanereled Lord Aerdeen that he should have a seat
iu the Cabinet, and give us the advantage of his knowledge
and experience upon important matters. With regard
to these subjects, I consider in these times—and, indeed,
ever since the Reform Bill passed- it is very difficult
for any party to form a Ministry, or to act together
without having several questions which are styled open
questions of policy. (Hear, hear). With regard to the
question of church rates, a very distinguished member
the present Ministry voted: for their total abolition; and of
acid
think the noble lord at the head of the Government.
his colleagues were quite right to permit that diversity of
opinion to exist. This is a question of the machinery. of
election, and if .men cannot act together because they
differ upon such a question, it seems to me there must be
a great deal of intolerance among those who ref use to act
together under such circumstances. (Hear, hear). 'The

late Sir Robert Peel changed his opinion on a very impor-
tant question, upon which at one time the safety of the
country in a great measure depended; but at the same
time, although I think his justification was complete, I
cannot but consider that some public mischief has been
done by that change. (Hear, hear). I agree with the
hon. member for Birmingham that this is not one of those
great questions of principle on which you can say the
whole working of our constitution depends. I do not
even think there is anything like unanimity of opinion in
the country on this occasion. At public meetings on the
subject I have always found that, while many differed
with me, many were disposed to coincide with my view.
I think it is the opinion of a great number that, unless
the suffrage is made almost universal, it is wrong Io de-
prive those who have no votes of that general influence of
public opinion over those who exercise public functions.
Believing the change is not for the good of the people, I
can only give the same vote I have always given against
the proposition. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BERKELEY replied.
The house then divided. The numbers were—
For the motion 197
Against it

Majority against the motion ..
The bill was consequently lost.
Mr. PAULL moved for leave to brinc, in a bill to en-
courage and facilitate the erection and improvement of
piers and harbours in Great Britain and Ireland.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said the inconvenience of the pre
sent mode of legislating in private was so great, that it was
the intention of the Admiralty to bring in a bill on the
subject with regard to piers and harbours ; but at the same
time he would not object to the hon. gentleman' laying his
bill on the table.

Leave was then granted.
EXEMPTION OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY

much better pleased to be left alone to settle our
own quarrel. But the nature of the co-operation
with our allies seems to be misunderstood. There
is no convention, no alliance, no defined common
object—unless, perhaps, the published letter of
Lord Elgin to Yeh may be supposed to create
an obligation to retain Canton until the French
demands as well as o.ur own are ceded. Each
nation has its separate grievance, and has made
its separate written demand. It will be probably
be found that these State papers agree very nearly
in the future securities they demand against
the infraction of treaties and the ill-treat-
ment of foreigners. This concord is probably not
quite accidental, but surely it is not undesirable.
It is in itself a proof that the public opinion and
the State policy of all the civilised nations of the
world are united upon this point ; and that, in
moderation and in justice, we are all led to adopt
the same remedies as the only cure for diversified
injuries. What would Mr. Bright have had us do ?
Would he have divided our squadron into two parts
drawing up one part to keep off the French, the
Americans, and the Russians, while with the other
half he thrashed the Chinese ! Or what would he
have done in the subsequent negotiations ? Would
he have satisfied himself with introducing Mr.
Parkes into Canton, while the French were obtain-
ing for their countrymen free transit through China?
It does so happen that the same remedy will secure
the lives of French missionaries, and will further
the development of English commerce. France is
determined to protect her citizens, and demands
that Frenchmen may lawfully travel in China under
the protection of the Chinese Government. Does
Mr. Bright wish that we should go to war with
France to compel her to desist from this demand ;
or does he wish that Esglishmeu should be ex-
cluded from the privileges that Frenchmen are
about to obtain, and which are reasonable in them-
selves and quite necessary for the security of indi-
viduals and the peace of nations ?—Times.