The Sun.
London, England, 1858-12-04 00:00:00

utmost ere& et, for the energetic course they have
pursued in cr rder to abate a social nuisance that
could never :hitherto be got rid of.

We thougl it it but fair, the other day, to insert
the letter of the Hon. H. BERKELEY, rejected by
the Times, i. a which, by citations from the letters
of confessedl y eminent Americans, he disproved the
assertion 173 ade in a prominent article in that
journal, thy; t the main object of the Ballot in Ame-
rica is rapi; d, not secret, voting. We observe that
the writer, whose second article is designated as
"From a Cc trrespondent," but one worthy, as before,
of large ty we, has not quite overlooked the letter
which the journal in which he writes would not
exhibit to o ther eyes. He at least feels that there
is something in the testimony of such men as Mr.
BERKELEY quotes, and, though his readers,
except through looking into another journal, can
form little idea of the value of the testimony in
favour of the Ballot, the writer of the articles on
" The American Elective System" deems it best to
fortify theta against danger, should they see the
letter. It might even be that, when some good
steady Rusellite or Palmerstonian "man of sub-
stance" says to his less Conservative son, or junior
partner, or active political friend,—" Have you
seen that first-rate article in the Times on The
American Elective System' ?—it upsets all your
theories about the Ballot nonsense and Extension
of the Suffrage." It might be that the other
would reply—" But have you seen the unanswer-
able testimonies from America cited by Mr.
BERKELEY in his letter to the Times P"
Of course, the " man of substance" sees no
other paper than the Times in his country house ;
still he must have an answer put into his mouth
for those whose political faith does not depend on

one journal.
On Friday, therefore, we have the answer to the
letter in the columns of the journal in which the
letter itself was not permitted to appear. And
here it is :—" The Ballot Society has heard from
several leading American politicians that it may be
made completely secret; those very individuals never
gave a vote in their lives that was not well known
to friend and foe, or they are most persevering and
consummate hypocrites, a charge from which, on
personal knowledge, we can acquit them. All
their influence is derived from the publi-
city of every act of their political career.
The host of office-seekers in America prefer
their claim on their public services to the party,
not only on their own avowed votes, but on the
number of other votes they influence. Secrecy is
impossible to any leader, however humble, and the
great mass of voters do not seek it. What they
find, however, is something we confound with
secrecy ; the individual is merged in the enormous
number ; the unit has no importance, and obtains
all the " secrecy of the single grain in a heap of
sand."

We have given the reply to Mr. BERKELEY en-
tire, for the writer is a man of talent, though the
Editor throws over him the shield of his editorial
power to exclude hostile facts and arguments.
Now, what does the reply amount to ?
First—and this is the all-important point
—it does not deny the fact maintained by
Mr. BERKELEY'S correspondents—correspondents
for whose high standing the anonymous and clever
correspondent of the Times vouches from personal
knowledge—it does not deny that the Ballot tnay
be made completely secret. On the contrary, the
reply fully, though tacitly, admits this grand
fact. Admitting this, all is admitted. No one
denies that, without reasonable precaution, the
secrecy of the ballot-box may be violated, and
that fraud and violence may be perpetrated. Indeed,
open voting is by no means exempt from fraud;
and a gentleman of some note in the Times office
itself can tell the " correspondent" some tales about
violence at Tewkesbury, and can supplement them
abundantly with stories of both spiritual and
physical violence from Ireland. That is all
irrelevant. We may therefore take it as con-
ceded that Mr. ANDERSON, one of the Berkeley
correspondents, is perfectly right in saying that
though " secret voting Is more subject to frauds of
thesekinds (stuffing the Ballot boxes, false bottoms
&c.) than the rival plan of voting, yet, on the other
hand, I think that these incidental evils and abuses,
are of such a nature that mere legislation can readily
circumvent them, and prevent their recurrence."

But, says the Times' correspondent, these very,
individuals never gave a secret vote—they are
all men of influence, and all their friends
well know how they vote,--indeed " secrecy is
impossible to any leader, however humble." Of
course it is. But who ever dreamed of the
Ballot extinguishing leadership in political con-
tentions—who ever wished it—and who ever sup-
posed that the leaders could be men who either
wanted to conceal their votes from any one, or that
they would be men so much more depraved than
the rest of us, as to be strenuous public advocates
of one candidate, and yet give theirsecret votes for
his opponent? Though we cannot believe, with
Lord PALMERSTON, that we are all born good, yet
we do not imagine it would be easy to find so gross,
so gratuitous a hypocrite as a political leader vot-
ing against his avowed party. The votes of all
these distinguished men are known ; why, there-
fore, is it asked, do they advocate secret voting?
Our own votes would be known at any election con-
ducted by Ballot. Why, therefore, should we advocate
secret voting ? The answer is the same in both
cases. Leaders of any pretensions to respectability
can vote but one way, and can, therefore, need, no
protection ; but in their position of leaders they see
and know of hundreds who cannot vote as they
think right without unpleasant or seriously inju-
rious consequences.

As to the concluding statement we cannot see
what there is in it. Of course voting with very
large numbers conduces to secrecy. It is a little
more costly to purchase a monster polling-book,
and a little more trouble to examine it ; but, if
there be a record of each vote, any vindictive per-
son can discover it at a cost of time and money
which he may think trivial compared with the
pleasure of revenge. Who confounds such possible
or partial secrecy with efficient secrecy secured by
law ? The rapid voting fallacy or fancy we may
now consider to be given up. Voting by ballot is
rapid—so much the better. It is orderly—so much
the better still. But it is also a security against
unfair dictation, and that is the best of all.

CABINET COUNCIL.—A Cabinet Council was held
at the official residence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
in Downing-street, yesterday. The Ministers present were
the Earl of Derby, the Right Hon. B. Disraeli, the Lord
Chancellor, the Marquis of Salisbury, the Earl of Hard-
wicke, Mr. Secretary Walpole, the Earl of Malmesbury,
Sir E. Bulwer Lytton, General Peel, Lord Stanley, Sir
John Pakington, the Right Hon. J. W. Henley, and Lord
John Manners. The Marquis of Salisbury arrived in town
from Windsor to attend the Cabinet.
The Duke and Duchess of Manchester left Great
Stanhope-street, yesterday, for Kimbleton Castle, Hunt-
ingdonshire. The noble duke and duchess will shortly go
on a visit to the duchess's relatives in Germany.
The Duke of Buccleuch has arrived at Brough-
ton House, Northamptonshire, from Bowhill, Selkirkshire.
Lord and Lady Walter Scott have joined the duchess and
family at Bowhill.
The Duke of Newcastle left town, on Thursday,
for Clumber Park, Notts.

-77 -