The Sun.
London, England, 1858-12-14 00:00:00

GREAT EASTERN. Completion for Sea.—
REFRESHMENTS.—Mr. WILLIAM DONALD,vof
the St. James's Hall, bz.gs to inform, the public that he has
arranged with the Directors to supply all the Refreshments
on board during the free day admission. Tickets for Free
Admission to be had of Mr. W. DONALD, G 9, Regent-street.

GEORGE HOBSON begs to call the attention
of Gentlemen to his New Autumnal Trousers, 21s. to
255. Also his New Partridge Mixture Shooting Coats.
Excellence with Economy.
GEORGE HOBSON, 57, Lombard-street.
Established 1796.

CIOCKS'S CELEBRATED READING SAUCE
N...J which is so highly esteemed with Fish, Game, Steaks
Soups, Grills, Gravies, Hot and Cold Meats, and unrivalled
for general use, is sold by the most respectable dealers in Fish
Sauces.—J. and C. COCKS, Reading, Sole Manufacturers.

WHO WILL PAY THE CHINESE
INDEMNITY ? Why, the English themselves. An
export duty is to be levied, and then not even the East India
fea Company will be able, as they now are, to sell I,lb. of
Black, Green, or Mixed Tea, at is. 10d. per lb., and Coffee, in
the Berry, at 10d.—Warehouse, 9, Great St. Helen's-church-
yard, City.

THE HON. W. F. CAMPBELL ON THE
QUESTION OF THE BALLOT.

On Tuesday evening a public meeting was held
in the Assembly Rooms, Taunton, for the purpose
of hearing addresses on the subject of the ballot,
and of adopting a petition to Parliament, praying
that any measure of reform proposed during the
next session should include the only means by
which the voter could be protected from undue and
prejudicial influence in the exercise of his vote ac-
cording to his conscientious conviction. The doors
had not been open more than a few minutes before
the room was crowded, and the entrance of the
Hon. W. F. Campbell. with Mr. W. Beadon, was
the signal for several rounds of hearty cheering,
waving g hats, &c. The chairman having opened
the proceedings,
The Hon. W. F. CAMPBELL, after some remarks
of a local character, said that he should not betray
his trust to the society of which Mr. Berkeley was
chairman, if, in the outset, he admitted that vote
by ballot would not be a remedy for every evil the
Reform Act might disclose. There was one grave
and palpable defect to which it could not be consi-
dered as applying. The defect to which he alluded
was this—that while our large commercial cities
were able to send representatives to Parliament—
while the landed interest was always able to return
the organs it confided in—the empire, as a whole,
was too often without the power of returning to
the House of Commons men who, in parliamentary
and national opinion, were entitled to remain there.
Since 1832 there had been too ninny illustrations of
this serious anomaly. At present it could not be
more strikingly displayed than by referring to the
name of Mr. Cobden. (Hear.) In that room, most
likely, there were persons who disagreed with Mr.
Cobden in political opinions, but not one who went
so far as to maintain that a man of such
abilities and services was properly excluded
from. the Legislature. If they went beyond the
limit of their town, or of their county, or the
island, in the most remote dependencies of Britain,
it would be difficult to find a person who would
sanction that exclusion ;, yet the country, however
strongly and unanimously it might feel upon that
point, had not the power to return him. This de-
fect of the Reform Act the ballot would not reach ;
but so neither would any of the changes which it
was now the fashion to discuss among reformers.
And if the ballot did not remedy, at least it would
not aggravate, the evil. If it did not multiply, it
would not reduce, the avenues to Parliament of men
like Mr. Cobden, who depended more on gifts of
mind than territorial advantages. And this could
not he said, perhaps, of all the changes into which
Governments were likely to be driven unless the
ballot was adopted. It was not unusal for politi-
cians to inquire by what solid facts such a change
as vote by ballot could be justified. There were
many answers to that question, but he preferred
one which rested on the basis of statistics. It should
first, however, be remarked that indifference to the
franchise they possessed was no prevailing quality
in our electors—the many strong motives were in
the habit of impelling them to vote—that every
facility of locomotion was afforded without expense
—that polling-booths were much nearer and more
frequent than they used to be, and that the limited
duration of the poll made it important for either
party to exert its strength without delay. If, in
spite of these circumstances, all urging men to
vote, a large per tentage of electors in the counties
on the register were found absent from the poll, it
was not easy to suppose that their power to vote
was unimpaired and independent. Mr. Campbell
then quoted statistics, showing the number of re-
gistered electors in 1852 who had not voted in
counties :—ln Middlesex, out of 14,610 electors on
the register, only 8,721 had polled; in East Kent,
out of 7,119, only 5,221; West Kent, out of 9,379,
only 5,852; East Surrey, out of 6,618, only 4,584;
Berkshire, out of 5,129, only 1,971 ; East Somerset,
out of 10,840, only 7,505 ; and about 20 other coun-
ties were namedin which the election books showed
a similar state of things, the total number of elec-
tors on the various registers being 170,024 out
of which only 116,153 had polled. He then re-
ferred to some of the distinguished men by whom
the ballot had been advocated, and particularly to
Lord Macaulay, who, on his return to Parliament
after a long absence, pronounced himself in his
speech on the 18th of June, 1839, as a supporter of
that measure. That speech was not answered then,
and never since had been refuted. (Hear.) Among
many strong considerations it urged one too re-
markable to be forgotten at this moment. Intimi-
dation and corruption, as Lord Macaulay reasoned,
were identical. (Hear.) Each of them consisted
in an irregular appeal to hopes and fears, with a
view to supersede the judgment and bribe the con-
science of the voter. (Cheers.) But against cor-
ruption new laws had been perpetually aimed since
the Revolution of 1688, and are still being aimed
now. Consistency and policy required that laws
should be directed against intimidation also—(loud
cheers)—which was but another form of offence.
(Continued cheers.) And how could they direct
laws against intimidation ? ' It was not possible,
according to our manners and ideas, to restrain the
customer in the choice of his tradesman, or to fetter
the landowner in the disposal of his farms. The
only alternative remaining was to direct their aim
to the intimidated party—to throw around him the
strongest shelter they were able to devise. And
no other shelter but the ballot had ever been pro-
pounded with that object. Such was the position
to which Lord Macaulay was entitled in 1839.
But how different and how much firmer was the
ground on which the friends of the ballot stood at
that very moment. It might be said with some
degree of plausibility,in answer to the distinguished
man he had referred to, that the Reform Act of
1832 was then a recent settlement—that it was not
expedient to disturb it even for a benefit of which
the value was demonstrated. The time for such
l
uelFene
Four
rears
united
Governmentsnei e
tmieytnee recent—at t
iosnaast
oret
acknowledging.rad
jai lwgt eueavhmrseab nead itntfs
necessity
arrangements,
Fenaaerdsnso
an answer was exhausted. The settlement was
t
turn
:raancl to
adooueuasinref
states-
men ate re-
presentativekha eer
to the supporters of the ballot, was far more vio-
lent a course than to resist it on the ground that
the time had not yet come for unsettling our sys-
tem. And in the same way the demand for the
hallot was far more rational and forcible, when
organic change was going to be proposed, than
when the intention was to keep it at a distance. A
Minister proposing to alter the Reform Act could
only do so by two methods. He must either go
upon the plan of occasional and gradual reform, or
s:miitotys,
riwnnt
oeitglcrlaehtetttescobvarhpe disturbed.
he must go on that of large and comprehensive
legislation. As regarded occasional reform, there
was no part more ripened by discussion than the
ballot. There was none on which so much light
had been reflected—none which it was so useless to
expose to further agitation and inquiry. Unless
half a century. It
atlbieositexitpenroiNmveanat
twhoeyrewtoruieldd,
.nthey knew as much
mo uagnh twtoou
lbde
venturedopt e d
oo r roej
omecm e dt ;
hai
mn ds
ef whatto
as t
fia tneas
1-
negative against it ? If, however, a Minister pre-
bt
comprehensive legislation,
legislation, his
intended
s
ferred the plan of comprehneonsdiovue le
to be permanent. It was only with a view to
iper-
manence that comprehensive legislation on organic
questions could be offered or accepted. But what
Permanence could really mark any comprehensive
scheme from which the ballot was excluded ?
(Hear, hear.) Would boroughs be more silent than