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

-
in its operation, which forms to a certain extent an objection
it. Whoiiever the poorer classes meddle at all 4vi,11
the fret doiii or outer ition's votes, each of them individually is
of little weight or importance, and it is only as a combined
mass that they can interfere with effect. Now, the steps re-
quisite to bring about concert and co-operation in a numerous
body are liable to be more or less public, and the interference
thus becomes cognizable by law. But the interference of the
same kind, and for the same purpose,. exercised by rich men
individually, needs no public notification, no joint declaration
or resolution, to render it effective, and it therefore escapes
legal cognizance altogether. The species of dictation which
is the most wide spread and the most injurious--subtle
and untraceable in its course, but fearfully ruinous in
its effects—is precisely that which the Honourable Gen-
tleman's Bill leaves untouched and unmolested. It la
my firm belief, that all those who now employ undue power
over voters would still persevere in doing so, without the
smallest apprehension of incurring the penalties provided by
the Hon. Gentleman's Bill—and if, by accident, one perse,Fu-
tor out of ten thousand should be convicted under it, his late
would be ascribed by the remainder, not to the natural conse-
quences of the Act, but to his folly in omitting the easy
precaution of disguising a menace in the form of a request.---
( Hear.) Now, if the Bill of the Hon. Member for Shaftes-
bury
be thus inadequate to its purpose, are there any inYillee
ble objections which sqould deter you from accepting my Pr°'
position of the Ballot ? I contend that there are no such in'
vincible objections—and I will endeavour briefly to exhibit the
real worth of the exceptions commonly taken against it. .17:1.°11
hear some object to it as being what they call un-Engli'i
and thus much is, indeed, true, that bribery and intimidation
of voters are ancient, home-bred, and established English
practices, and that the antidote to them has not yet been natu-
ralized in our electoral institutions. But if the evil be great'
and there be no other way of correcting it, shall we reject the
only applicable remedy because, though employed in France
and in the United States of America, it has never yet obtained
legal sanction in England ? But the objection, futile as, t
is, has not even the merit of being accurate in P°ll/0,.
of fact. The vote by Ballot is not un-English;
of the thousand private associations and clubs whi"
exist everywhere throughout the country, whenele
the members are called on to perform the process of electiourf
the votes are uniformly taken by ballot. This is the mode
voting spontaneously resorted to by Englishmen when they
are left to themselves in their private associations, and when,
they desire to call for a free and unconstrained expression 0'
opinion from each individual member; and surely it is not to
be denounced as uncongenial to the feelings and habits of th°
nation. Some persons will tell me that undue interferenoef
with the liberty of voting will still continue, even in unite
0
the Ballot, because the Ballot will not produce entire and ff
fectual secrecy. A landlord (they contend) disposed to 7;
oppressively, though he cannot watch his tenant during
express act of voting, may yet find out by indirect and c°`;
teral evidence how he has actually voted, and may punish 10,..
accordingly. I shall admit, Sir, that with or without the /3,.!1`t
lot an oppressive landlord may deal harshly by his tenants but
let him do this, or abstain from doing it, as he pleases, still hie
cannot make the infliction of loss conditional on the way e
which the vote is given—he cannot make his oppression 1130
means of controlling or perverting an unseen vote. If
tenant voter be an object of suspicion, he will not
charge himself from that suspicion by falsifying his 0,10
at the poll, because it never can be made evident
any one else that he has actually done so.—(llear
hear.) He may be a sufferer ; he may be a sufferer wrong-
fully and undeservedly ; but he cannot be in any ea"; •
worse off on account of conscientious voting, so long. es his
votes in secret. Therefore he can have no motive to give to
vote contrary to the dictates of hia conscience, and thus
forfeit his duty towards the public. No one has ever Tod
tended that the Ballot will shield voters from all sorts 611.,
causes of oppression. It is proposed as a means of relieflub;
them from the conflict of private risk and public duty on
specific occasion of voting. This relief it cannot fail to 1%
part, and directly it imparts no more. But indirectly, and
its collateral effects, it reaches much farther ; for the vote a
the sole and exclusive object which intermeddlers aim at, an
' when they cannot grasp the vote by means of terror and ,°l7.
ercion, they will have no motive to employ these ininnue,
methods at all. Nay, they will even have a positive induco
ment to exchange menace for conciliation ; for the voter wh°,_
they cannot force may yet be freely enlisted on their side 14
persuasion and gentle dealing. But then there are Gentle;
men who tell us that secret voting is base and unmanly,. •
cloak for hypocrisy and deceit. You bestow the electwd
franchise upon a man for the purpose of eliciting his jaw°
judgment and opinion on the choice of a representative—es
matter of supreme moment to the State. If on full delihe"
ration you command him to transmit this opinion to you c 0.%
fidentially, what can there be base and unmanly in 2;:c
obeying you ? If there be reasons, as regards the lan'T_
interest, for preferring secrecy of voting, there can
no reason as regards the voter himself for de-
ciding otherwise. But we are told that if a man votes Se:
cretly, he may promise his vote to one candidate and give is
to another—he may assure me that he has voted for me, or
I
vote for me, while in reality he votes for my rival. ask lAD
reply, why should we suppose this to be likely ? Why shoo
`"'
not a man who has promised his vote perform the promise;
just as much when he votes secretly as when he votes openly
Secrecy puts no fresh difficulty in his way—it gives him n°
new motive to break his promise ; it simply enables him to do •
so with impunity if he pleases; and the question still remains
—why should he please to break his promise ? There call be
only one reason—because the promise is not eonformable to
his own natural inclinations, and has been extorted from him
by a force upon his free will. This is the only case in which
promise-breaking can possibly arise ; the free and voluntary
promise will be observed as surely in the darkness as in the
light, but the voter who has been bullied into a reluctant pr
ho;
mise may, perhaps, take advantage of secrecy to elude t
performance of it. Now, Sir, lam not the man to speak
lightly of a breach of promise ; but I venture to ask wheth
it is possible to imagine any promise less binding, andenr re
unjustifiable, than that which a voter has been constraints free
give, in reference to the exercise of his trust, against
will, and against his conscience ? Is this a promise such
.70
any man is entitled to ask of a voter ? Is it a proun'...
such as any voter is justified in giving, let him be ever 51.
much solicited, or ever so much threatened? I say, n°'.,ete
Such
voter has no right to enter into an engagement to so
against his own free choice and conscience, because
entry
Zing he expressly contravenes the trust which his counting
laver reposes in him. The sole intent and purpose of ines his
him with the elective franchise is, that he may delive ,_
"
free and indifferent suffrage at the poll. A promise to de-
free
liver a suffrage which is neither free nor indifferent bt,
point of fact, a promise to commit wrong—a promise °lied
guilty of deliberate breach of trust. A promise elri es
by fear of evil is just as insincere, and just as 111110 3 Ili,
a promise suborned by the present of a bribe. Let me lei.
impress upon you, Sir, that these wrongful promises c
tute the whole of what is involved in the present arguin?..:rig
they are the only promises which are in any danger of
ill;
broken when votes are taken by ballot. But is it any great 7 IS
chief that wrongful promises of this kind should be broken ea?
is not rather a greater mischief that they should be observe
Suppose a man has entered into a solemn promise to c° wit-
any other a wrong—suppose,he has engaged to bear falSe.ury
ness in a court of justice—to give a partial verdict in the Avate
box—to become an accomplice in any breach of trust, Pritered
or public—will any one tell me that a man who has en jog
into such a criminal engagement, would be right in perfori°,9,,,
the act of criminality to which lie has bound himself?
suredly not. He has already done great wrong by the. 0. if
promise to commit a crime ;he would do still greater inbe
he went on to perform such a promise, and to colninellbssa
crime in reality. I could say much on the conduct of
to let
who extort these promises, but at present my object is
you see distinctly the utmost extent of duplicity and pr°'oo.
breaking which the Ballot can by possibility let in tin°ll
Take it at the worst, those promises only will be bre.
_e.
which ought never to have been asked and never to "
t*:
been made. This is the true way of stating the argtituf-ao
and I ask whether it does not prove in favour of the
against it? I contend that under secret suffrage there, will
bi
far less duplicity than there is at present, because men ben
cease to press for unrighteous and compulsory pro:nisesrewnder
existing their power of compelling performcence. raven
the system of terrorism, the great object whicher
strive for is to tie down the voter by a solemn Pricte.
whether his conscience goes along with it or not : and If
plicity of one kind or other thus becomes unavoidable-
the voter keeps his promise, he lies to his conscience Ws
Balle/J,
his country by giving an insincere vote ; if he breaks, „0
promise, he lies to the individual who extorted it if;ns
him. Such is the dilemma which this guilty encroach es,
on the freedom of the electoral conscience inevitably crete:
Open voting is the indispensable condition to its exer°7to
secret voting would extinguish it at once. With res Pen"
bribery, Sir, the inefficacy of the existing prohibitory at
of
but too well ascertained. I know, indeed, that they et'", il I
several material improvements ; but improve theta as you ;n
in other respects, you will still find that among the checks tiny
obstructions to bribery, the vote by Ballot will prove one °,
most valuable and effective. It will annihilate the confine.;Dt
between the two contracting parties in this unlawful coal' ne
—it will deprive the bribe-giver of all certainty or assuo
that he receives the stipulated return for his money.
will reward an individual for his vote, when that very vo*.o
for aught he knows, be given in favour of his opponenti?,:,
then, it will be said, may not the candidate engage to tr-rolf
bute a certain sum of money among the voters cDnditifin
being returned, and not until after he is returned? I shall
affirm, Sir, that such a proceeding will be a 1 tog ether imp—tel;
ticable under the Ballot. But Ido affirm that, it be ...-
more costly, more uncertain, and more liable en detection ,thfg
bribery is at present.—( Hear.) The voter
a separate bargain, as he does now for his o,wn individual veif-:
would have to give his vote under art v ncertainty of recfie
ing anything at all ; and the candidate,being retur-a
would have to pay every voter who after
iv., bo.
, instead of 018A—te
ing no means of distinguishing frienee:s opponent :;,-tttoti
/fPrloimedofor paynase
therefore, by means of thq Ballo+ , you pluck up intreinud se.
by the roots, you at the saran +.
strain the practice of briber- -me greatly embarrass n'e two
But the former of it,
effects separately, even f.
.1 the latter did not accomps_l?
would be enough, and ing
case. If it be diffie, more than enough, to make o_nsiriet,
ing dishonest vote! Jtt to devise adequate means for Pireest
peculiar solici'.aide
of all reasons fr• 6 from taking bribes, is not that the strso
,r guarding the virtue of honest vote
car'
not either r 0
of
filtloiniegr v' .If there are dishonest voters who rut_ the
, rrect or curb, the more ought yon to cherishoar;c•
.rtue of the remainder, as presenting the only C. not
very able purity at elections. And surely, Sir, it is e.
rmnsistent or creditable, if, while you impose severe P.l.
nP,itits for the purpose of forcing dishonest voters into the pest
of honesty, you withhold from those voters who would be bon;
of themselves the common blessing of safety. The Hon, 34e
ist
her here proceeded to combat the objection urged
the Ballot, on the ground that the elector ought to give