The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-03 00:00:00

vestry that the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin had
Prie,t to t.neli pari,,h in the c(luto-y.--i.
and a laugh.) The Noble Lord was most correct when, in
his parting address to his supporters in Devon, he attributed
his defeat to intimidation and undue influence. That election
was lost through the exertions of the Nobles and of the landed
gentry, and through the undue influence of the Clergy, who,
as the proprietors, were, in a certain degree, the landlords of
each farm in the county.—( Hear.) Freedom of election was
the only means of obtaining pure representation and of insuring
good Government ; and, therefore, every obstacle which op
posed itself to that freedom of election ought, at every risk, to
be removed. It was demonstrated, beyond a doubt, not only
that with the Ballot all intimidation would be quite useless,
but that open voting was much more likely to produce immo-
rality than secret voting.—( Hear, hear.) There was an ar-
gument which had been much employed by the antagonists of
the Ballot, and on which the Noble Lord the Member for
Stroud placed especial reliance. The elective franchise, it
was said, was a trust reposed in the hands of the elector for the
advantage of the community ; and the elector was responsible
for the manner in which he exercised that trust. Secret suf-
frage would destroy that responsibility, and therefore it was
argued it would be an evil. Now, if the electoral system were
what it ought to be, the interests of the electors would coin-
cide with the interests of the community ; and the real wishes
of the electors would be the best expression of the real inte-
rests of the community. If this responsibility of the elector
to the non-elector acted in the same direction as the wishes
of the elector, then evidently it was superfluous ; if this re-
sponsibility acted in a contrary direction, it was pernicious ;
but what was the price they now paid for this useless re-
sponsibility ? To obtain it the elector was exposed to all
the influence which wealth possessed over poverty ; they
created for the elector two responsibilities—a responsibility to
the non-electors, and a responsibility to the rich and the
powerful. Who did not see that the responsibility of the
poor man to the poor class of men was as nothing, whilst the
responsibility to the rich man was all powerful? Those who
laid stuch stress upon the responsibility to the non-elector
themselves proclaimed the worthlessness of it, for they said
that with secret suffrage tenants would stay away from the
poll at the command of their landlords. What did this pro-
claim in the loudest manner? What but this—that the mo-
tive created by the power of good or evil in the hands of the
poor multitude was as nothing—that the motive created by the
same power in the hands of the rich few was irresistible.
Could there be a stronger argument in favour of the Ballot
than this? Could there be a more pointed satire on the pre-
tence that the knowledge by the poor of the manner in which
the elector voted was a security for honest voting ?—( Hear. )
Of these positions (the Hon. Baronet continued) the Noble
Lord, the ex-Member for Devon, ought now to be aware.
He would recall to that Noble Lord's recollection his enthu-
siastic reception in the south of Devon ; the scene in the
Castle-yard in Exeter ; the assembled thousands who there
greeted him with the loudest acclamations, and three-fourths
of whom held up their hands in his favour.—( Hear.) Where
he would ask that Noble Lord, was his much vaunted respon-
sibility of the elector to the non-elector when a few days
afterwards, in that same city, an enormous majority re-
corded their votes against him.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble
Lord had experienced the effects of the responsibility of the
elector to the wealthy and powerful; he had found it irre-
sistible.—(Hear, hear, hear.) It was said that men who ab-
stained from registering their votes, or who voted contrary to
their real wishes, were traitors to their country. Undoubtedly
they were so. But he should contend that men who, by
acting in a contrary manner, exposed themselves to the anger
and evil offices of their powerful superiors, were tenfold
traitors to themselves, to their families, and to their dearest
dependents. Men could not be expected, nor would the)
year after year sacrifice themselves—year after year sacrifice:
their families and their best interests—in order to '(*ratify the
ambition, to secure the return, of those who would not listen
to their complaints, or grant them the much needed, the
only efficacious protection, of the Ballot. Let the Noble Lord
and those who thought with him reflect and ponder well upon
these facts. They ought now to be aware of the fact—to
them undoubtedly a most mortifying fact, that amongst the
gentry of England their party was most dreadfully in the mi-
nority ; they ought now to be aware that the vast majority of
the aristocracy of the landed gentry, and all the clergy, to a
man, were their determined and irreconcileable foes—( Hear,
hear)—who would spare no efforts, who would use every
species of intimidation and undue influence, to compass their
destruction.—( Hear, hear, hear.) They could not with the
same weapons successfully contend against their too power-
ful antagonists. If they could not protect their friends—
and they were too weak to do so without the aid of the
Ballot—if they left their supporters exposed to the tender
mercies of the Tory party—they would by degrees be
ejected, like the Noble Lord, from the representation of
all the counties of England. Did they remember their
fatal losses in the counties during the last general election ?
Did they remember that their friends were ejected, and re-
placed by their antagonists, in Berkshire, Buckinghamshire,
Cambridgeshire, Denbighshire, Derbyshire, Devonshire
South, Essex South, Gloucestershire West, Hampshire South,
Lancashire South, Leicestershire South, Lincolnshire, Nor-

folk East, Northamptonshire South, Shropshire North, Suf-
folk East, Suffolk West, Surrey East, Surrey West, War-
wickshire South ; that within the last few weeks they had
been again dismissed from Devonshire, Inverness-shire, and
Staffordshire. They had themselves proclaimed to the people
of the United Kingdom the causes of their defeat in the Ad-
dress of their own Reform Association. They there told the
people that their defeat was not caused by " any change or
re-action in public opinion, but by various means either out
of the reach or repugnant to the principles of Reformers, by
the unprecedented canvass of a large body of the Clergy, by
bribery and intimidation, by the corrupting influence of close
corporations, by the unscrupulous perversion by Tory autho-
rities for party purposes of powers confided to them for the
maintenance of order and the ends of justice." These, the
Hon. Baronet concluded with saying, were their own words,

and by them they were now called upon to abide. Did they
require stronger arguments in favour of the Ballot than those?
Was this list not a sufficient proof to them of the absolute
necessity of the Ballot ?—( Hear.) Did they prefer to be ut-
terly annihilated as a party in the House, rather than have
the Ballot? If so, their fate was nigh at hand, and they
would well merit it. (The Hon. Baronet sat down amidst
much cheering.)
Mr. GISBORNE—In rising to oppose the measure of the
Hon. Gentleman, was glad to find it admitted and recognised
that the franchise was held by those who possessed it as a trust.
If, as was admitted, the franchise was a trust, why was it that
a trust so important should be exercised in a secret and inscru-
table manner?—(Cheers.) Why should it be exercised in
such a way as to render it impossible for the person in whom
the trust was vested to prove whether he had or had not exer-
cised it for the benefit of those in whose behalf he was em-

powered to use it ?—( Hear, hear.) If the secresy did not go
to that extent it would be inefficacious._( Cheers.) Now the
advantages of open voting were so strong and obvious that he
could not consent to abandon them. Indeed the scenes which
the late elections exhibited had almost overcome his scruples
with regard to the Ballot, and he would consent entirely to
give up those scruples if the Hon. Gentleman would convince
him that the advantages which it was insisted would follow
from the Ballot could be obtained. He felt that it would be
very difficult to frame a system of voting which would secure
secrecy. He had suggested to the Hon. Member, instead of
his present motion, to move for a Select Committee to inquire
into the means of framing some machinery for secret voting
at elections which would be effective against intimidation, and
if the result of the inquiries of that Committee made it appear
that such machinery could be devised the measure should have
his support ; but he could not, in the present state of the
question, support the bold proposition of the Hon. Gentleman.
He was, to a certain extent, a convert to the Ballot. He was
so far a convert to it that he was ready to encounter all the
inconveniences of secret voting if he could be convinced that
a perfect system was practicable. The Hon. Member for the
City of London stated that the Ballot would not alter the
Constitution of the country, and appeared throughout his
speech to expect that its adoption would tend to the increase
of the popular power. Now he (Mr. Gisborne), at the same
time that he wished to be understood as far from desiring any
extension of the franchise or popular power, begged to express
it as his opinion that the Ballot, so far from promoting, would
not only prevent the increase but considerably circumscribe the
bounds of popular influence. Suppose a strong popular feel-
ing in favour of an extended franchise were to spring up under
the present system, it was evident that the existence of such
a feeling would have a great influence on the voting, but he
much doubted whether an elector, if he could vote in secret,
would be inclined to admit the class below himself in the
scale of society to a participation in that privilege which
thus gave him a degree bf power and influence. On these
grounds he did not look to the Ballot as a thing likely
to give a great extension to democratic power ; on the
contrary, he thought it would operate quite the other
way ; but though he regarded this argument as no re-
commendation to it, and though thinking that a fair ex-
tension of the franchise had already been made, and that
there was a fair sample of the opinions of the country to be
found in the present state of its representation, and that its
several interests were adequately placed before the House of
Commons, he was not prepared to sanction any measure tend-
ing to increase the popular power. He had come to the de-
termination of giving the motion of his Hon. Friend every
opposition in his power. If the Hon. Member had moved for a
Committee he should have had his (Mr. Gisborne's) support,
but at the present moment he felt convinced he best consulted
the advantages of the question by meeting the motion with a
direct negative.

Dr. BOWRiNG supported the original motion.
Mr. B. HOY should give his support to the amendment of
the Hon. Member for South Derbyshire.
Mr. STRUTT supported the original motion. In his
opinion the system of Ballot, so far from interfering with the
security of property to its prejudice, would render it much
more firmly based, for it would give to the man who had
little the same means of defending that little, as the man who
was rich had of watching over his thousands. It was said it
would destroy the influence of good masters over their ser-
vants ; he thought it would have quite a contrary effect.
There was another argument advanced against the Ballot,
namely that it would lead to the immorality of inducing men
to break their promises. But he would ask what kind of
morality was that which would exact the fulfilment of a pro-
mise which it was in itself unfair to propose ? What right had
the rich man to extort a promise from the poor ? Then, as to
the objection to the motion that the machinery of the secret
voting was not explained, the two questions were quite dis-
tinct. Let the Ballot be first established, and the scheme of
its working would soon follow.
Mr. WILLIAMS, from the many instances of intimida-
tion and corruption he had witnessed, was favourable to the
Ballot. The extension of the franchise under the Reform
13111 has been, in many cases, an evil, from. the many tempts_
tions to bribery, and the exposures to intimidation which it