The Sun.
London, England, 1858-12-31 00:00:00

ber for Bucks would like to do, there is not, that
we know of, any probability of a serious proposal
to convert farm labourers into electors. They do
not ask it. They would not come fairly under a
rating suffrage. They have not the knowledge
and intelligence of operatives in towns, and could
at present have scarcely an opinion of their own on
public questions and public men. They are so
entirely dependent on the farmer who employs
them., and, through him, on the farmer's landlord,
that their votes could hardly affect the election of
a, single agricultural county. In such counties,
as indeed the letter of S..G. 0. implies, the elections
are decided by the landlords. It is pretty much
of a farce to give votes to any one else ; and unless
it is intended to concede real protection to the
voter, Lord DERBY would effect a great reform,
and save a deal of trouble and expense, if he super-
seded all other electors, and gave each landlord
votes in proportion to the number of bona fide
tenants on his estate.
We should entirely agree with S. G. 0. in
the picture he gives of Hodge, if poor Hodge
were not at the same time supposed to be
protected by the ballot. But, in our time we, as
well as S. G. 0., have had considerable acquain-
tance with Hodge, and we must think that even in
Dorsetshire the case is not so bad as that which he
describes. It is true that Hodge must " please the
master a good deal, and not displease the landlord
at all ;" that it is " advisable to please the parson,"
not to offend " the shop with its score," and that
" the guardians of the poor," the "parish doctor,"
and even " the relieving officer" are all persons
with whom he would prefer to stand well. But
S. G. 0. adds—" Give him a vote, without even
the power of making any of these parties certain
he has obliged them by its use, in what a position
of painful peril do you place him?" S. G. ais a
great authority in rural parish matters ; still we
cannot, for the life of us, comprehend the poor
labourer's peril in the case supposed. If it be most
for his interest to " oblige" one of these parties, he
can stick to the story that he has done so, and get
the benefit of his character for veracity. But the
fact must be that the Ballot must generate here, as
elsewhere, quite a different relation between poor
voters and their superiors. They would be can-
vassed by instructive argument, whether personally
or collectively at meetings_; or, if they could read,
by the press. The fact mentioned by S. G. 0.,
that none of the village potentates, or sub-poten-
tates, could not "be certain that he had obliged"
any one of them, must cure them of the political
infirmity of fancying they had any claim upon
Hodge for the " obligation" of his vote. The
Ballot is legislative proof of a man's right to his
own vote ; and, except in the desirable way of
argument, it renders interference of any kind
discreditble, almost criminal. We are told that in
Australia, already, the attempt to canvass person-
ally is regarded with disfavour, and that the feel-
ing of resentment in a constituency where it was
attempted would probably insure the defeat of the
canvassing candidate, even though his politics were
popular, We are persuaded, therefore, that
S. G. 0. would find the working of the Ballot to
be, that the village magnates of all kinds would,
even in order to attain their object, avoid all ap-
pearance of coercion, and, if they wanted influence,
would rely on kindness and persuasion. Had poor
Hodge a vote under the Ballot, the result would
be that, in prospect of an election, he would receive
many a smile and many a favour to which he is
now a stranger. He must be treated as a man,
when the law made him one, and when he could
punish those who treated him as a slave.
We have, like S. G. 0., little doubt that the
agricultural labourers would, under almost any
arrangement, with the Ballot or without it, go
with the landowners ; yet, we incline to think that
the possession of a vote would gradually improve
their social position. He seems to fear that
in "open " parishes they would be worried
between rival candidates, and be deprived, by the
Ballot, of the advantage of siding with the
strongest. We fear nothing of the sort. And
though we think it politically useless, just yet, to
enfranchise farm labourers, we cannot doubt that
they would gain rather than lose in their social
relations through their political power. We are
well assured that S. G. 0. does not writeas a party
man, but we cannot assent to his conclusions.
An open vote would, we doubt not, be frequently
a curse to the labourer. A protected vote would
make him an independent, and, therefore, a well-
treated elector.
The picture of canvassing the upholsterers, under
the present system of open voting, is perfect :
" I once canvassed a large upholsterer for his
vote at a hot county election ; he had every will to
oblige my friend more than any one, but it so hap-
pened that he was at the moment in the very
depths of a large order for a squire who voted
blue ;' he had had no end of money and patronage
from an influential ' red :' it was notorious tha

the owner of Beech-tree Park was going to pull
down to re-erect the large mansion of the estate ;
he had a good introduction to him, but had just
heard that, with an eye to the future, he, Lord
Beechbark, intended to support tlug ultra-Whig, or

' green' party ! He said, As a tradesman I can-
not afford any political bias, but this don't help
me : I can please no one of my customers without

offending all the rest. I )vish I never had a

vote.' "

When, however, S. G. 0. " doubts whether the
Ballot would have saved him," we must express a
doubt whether S. G. 0. has given the subject fair

consideration. He overlooks the sentiment which
the Ballot must crcato. Where it does exist in this

country, it generates the feeling that to interfere

with what is intentionally made secret is bad. It
is un-English. We are a nation very fond of

privacy. We conceal our age, our income, and

our income-tax, and our bankers' balance, and a

hundred things beside. There is not on earth a

nation which likes secrecy more, and which re.

spects it more in all things which law or custom
render secret. The upholsterer would have the

benefit of this sentiment, like every one else. His

customers would be ashamed to pry into the ballot

box if they could, for the purpose of vengeance,

f they wished to do it, public opinion would be

,00 strong for them. People would be afraid to

persecute others on the suspicion that they had

voted differently to themselves.

COURT CIRCULAR.

WINDSOR, DEC. 30.
Her Majesty's dinner party yesterday included the
Prince of Wales, the Right Hon. Spencer and Mrs. S.
Walpole, Col. the Hon. R. Bruce, tho Dean of Windsor
and the Hon. Mrs. Wellesley, Col. P. H. and Lady Emily
Seymour, Sir James Clark, and Major Loyd Lindsay.
The Right Hon. Spencer and Mrs. S.. Walpole have left
the Castle.

Lord Staley had an audience of her Majesty, and pre-
sented Mr. Sergeant Wells to receive the honour of knight-
hood, on his appointment to be a Judge of the Supreme
Court at Calcutta.

The Hon. Eleanor Stanley and the Hon. Horatia Stop-
ford have succeeded the Hon. Caroline Cavendish and the
Hon. Flora Macdonald, as Maids of Honour in Waiting.

Lady Harriet Corry and Misses Corry have left
the Admiralty, for Tunbridge Wells. The Right Hon. H.
T. L. Corry, M.P., has gone on a tour of visits.

The directors of the National Bank of Vienna
have resolved upon resuming cash payments in full on the
d proximo.