The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-04 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC--J-OURNALLS:-

Again has the Ballot been lost in a Reformed House of
Commons by a majority of 173 ! Mr. Grote's speech, on
moving the question, was truly described by an Hon. Mem-
ber as anticipating and unanswerably refuting every plea of
his opponents, as clearing the whole space of argument,
and leaving nothing for subsequent speakers to adduce in
its favour ; and most truly did he describe it in these terms.
A more unanswerable--a more logical—a more philoso-
phical speech—save and excepting one by Lord Brougham
on Law Reform—never issued from the lips of any Mem-
ber of the House of Commons ; and we trust that as the
Conservative piece of falsehood which Sir R. Peel was
guilty of uttering in the Hall of the Merchant Tailor's has
been printed in a cheap form for universal distribution, the
speech of Mr. Grote will receive similar honour at the
hands of all true Reformers, and be sent forth by them as
its proper antidote—and not only as its proper antidote,
but in order that the people may have both an opportunity
of judging of the conduct of their constituents upon the de-
bote of Tuesday, and the means of replying to their shallow
and ineffective arguments. Mr. Gisborne, from whom we
had hoped better things, led the opposition in a speech
as inconsistent with itself as any ever uttered by a
sham Reformer, even by Sir Robert Peel himself. In
commencing his speech he confessed his surprise (as well
he might) at giving his opposition, after the convincing ar-
guments he had heard. " Mr. Grote has drawn," said he,
" a perfect picture of the advantages of secret voting !"
Yet Mr. Gisborne could not see these advantages—but he
would support a motion for a Committee of Inquiry !
" The present motion was ill timed." Why ? Because,
forsooth, it would embarrass the Government ; and the
conversion of Lord John Russell might be imputed, not
to the " arguments and irrefragable evidence" of Mr.
Grote, but to the rejection of the Noble Lord from
South Devon. Such were the grounds of Mr. Gisborne's
worse than peurile opposition. We tell Mr. Gisborne,
and the other mock Liberals, that it is the delay, and
not the adoption of the Ballot, which will not only embar-
rass, but may ultimately overthrow, the present Govern-
ment ; and we trust Lord John Russell has too correct a
sense of what is due to himself and the country, to act as
Mr. Gisborne inferred, in opposition to his conviction, lest
his motive might be impugned. Such bye-play is un-
worthy of, nay, it is criminal, in men entrusted with the
high functions of legislators. Is the settlement of a great
question to be delayed, because at the moment one or more
individuals are ashamed to acknowledge their conversion to,
and conviction of its expediency ? But let us examine the
other absurdities, we cannot call them arguments, urged in
opposition. It was urged that it would be inconsistent to
render the votes of the electors secret, while it was endea-
voured to give the votes of the House greater publicity.
The two cases bear no similarity to each other. The elec-
tor in his vote should consult only his conscience, and be
responsible only to his God ; whereas the representative
should consult his constituency, and be responsible to them
for the manner in which he discharges his trust. We deny
that the elective franchise is a trust : it is a right—the na-
tural inheritance of every man. Though expediency in the
transition from an enslaved to a free state of society may
guard against a premature admission to its exercise, it is a
right which a man cannot surrender without committing a
political suicide. If it be a trust, who gave it ? It will be
answered, the Legislature. The rotten-borough Legisla-
ture, or its remnant in the Reformed Parliament ? The
created was pleased to grant to the creator the power of
giving another existence ! The elected to the elector the
privilege of again exercising the rights of a freeman ! Was
there ever more blasphemous sophistry ? We are asto-
nished how honest and reasonable men could admit that
the elective franchise is a trust. If it be, it is a trust of
the rights of the non-electors in the electors, in which case,
however startling it may appear, the influence of the unre-
presented masses is the only legitimate influence on the votes
of the constituency. But it is not so much the influence of
the ignorant as of the enlightened which the opponents of
the Ballot dread. The Ballot would prevent all un-
due influence, and that is the genuine motive for oppo-
sition. To say the Ballot is an un-English or anti-national
custom is in the first place to assert a falsehood, as
most of our public bodies, and even the aristocracy them-
selves, in their clubs and less honourable associations, adopt
it as a protection in the admission of members ; and why ?
—to preserve in society that harmony which it is fraudu-
ently and falsely asserted that the Ballot would destroy—
and, in the next place, even if the assertion were true, it
has no just weight, as the mere pretence to a fair repre-
sentation was un-English till the passing of the Reform
Act. Tory domination had made every abuse English,
and every remedy anti-national. Hence the appeal of a
school-boy senator to the electors, " not to strike in the
Clark, but manfully, openly, and in open day." How very
fine, truly, for the electors to be led to the poll, like beasts
from their stalls !—to have the whip held - in terrorem l—
and if not the halter, the more shameless check of a tyrant
landlord placed upon their necks, to betray their country
and their conscience, and to strike down freedom, " man-
fully, openly, and in open day !" Surely the Tories ought
to favour us with a cheer for our exposition of their
true sentiments. Never in any debate was greater in-
consistency and jugglery betrayed than by the opponents
of Mr. Grote's motion ; each adverse speaker either con-
tradicted himself or refuted the main arguments on his
own side. " Secret voting by the Ballot would be demo-
ralizing," said one. " The Ballot will not secure secret
voting," said another ; " evil must come from exercising the
vote in inscrutable darkness." " The manner of voting
may be easily ascertained with the Ballot—it is no protec-
tion." In the Ballot I see no probability of extending
democratical power." " The Ballot will consign the most
important affairs of the State to the guidance of a mob."
" The Ballot will tend in a great measure to secure impu-
nity to those who are guilty of bribery." "It will give
opportunity for wholesale bribery." "It will give a set of
persons (the nation) irresponsible power, and vest them
with the privilege of secret voting." These and similar
contradictory assertions were not only made by the speakers
on the same side, but even by the same individuals. This
reminds us of the quack who gave his patient a number
of foetid medicines, and being asked bis reason, re-
plied, To give the disease an opportunity of taking
its choice." It was stated by Lord John Russell that
" the Ballot would give opportunity and impunity
to wholesale bribery." We reply, that bribery then,
to be efficient, must include the purchase of an entire na-
tion, and we trust that the purchase of England's freedom
is not yet in the compass of her oppressor's ill-gotten wealth.
Mr. C. Russell inveighed against the Ballot as " calcu-
lated to destroy the legitimate influence of the higher class,
as operating as a shelter to corrupt voters, as raising the
populace against the Aristocracy, and as consigning the
more important affairs of the State to the guidance of a
mob." Heavens, are the people of England to be branded
as a " mob," by the wild insolence of an aspiring aristo-
crat ? Lord Stanley, in a singularly original line of argu-
ment, denied all the anticipated evil effects of the Ballot—
was silent as to the good—and with characteristic logical
acumen inferred that the ergo justified his opposition ! But
we are wearied to nausea with the flimsy pretexts, inane as-
sertions, and disgusting mockeries, which are brought to
bear against this great question ; however, we cannot con-
clude without noticing one observation made by Lord John
Russell, in reference to the Devon election—" He
owned that there were many instances in which the ex-
ercise of that" (aristocratic) " influence, had been
most painful to him—for he knew of men who had
voted for him, and whose vote had given him as much pain
as if it had been against him ; for he knew they had given
it at great sacrifice, on risk of their personal interests,
sometimes in opposition to direct threats." So Lord John
Russell was as much pained at the free and conscientious
exercise of the franchise, as he would have been at its base
betrayal to intimidation. With such an expression on his
lips, we need not wonder at his opposition to the only
guarantee of purity of election. But were his expressions
sincere as to the sacrifices made for him, why not at once
adopt a measure of security against their recurrence? In
fine, if the people expect redress, they must confide in none
but themselves. Power is too fertile in corruption for
honest policy to be permitted action by those in possession
of it. But when men now in the ascendant will themselves
totter before the arch-corruptionists, they will regret the
blind infatuation in which they at present reject the un-
shackled, unbought, uninfluenced suffrages of the people.
When borne down and sinking, they may gladly seize the
Ballot as their last hope—their life-boat ; may it even then
preserve the State from the miseries of Tory dominion, or
what would be as bad in its action, though perhaps better in
its effect—the horrors of a civil war Advertiser.

A second legislative delusion was disposed of by the
House of Commons on Tuesday evening, not so gross and
palpable certainly as the paper or metallic nostrum recom-
mended by Mr. Cayley on the day preceding ; but a delu-
sion, so far as we can judge, more dangerous, forasmuch as
it is less obvious, and incomparably more demoralizing and
degrading, because of the extensive action which it (the
Ballot) seems calculated to exercise upon the political and
social character of Englishmen. We ought, indeed, to ac-
knowledge, and we do so with great willingness, another
striking difference between the Currency question and the
Ballot question, in relation to the motives through which
they appear to have been severally brought forward and
support.ed. The depreciation of the currency was proposed
to Parliament by a member of a particular class or trade—.
viz., a dealer in land, and avowedly to serve the selfish objects
of himself and his brother landmongers ; whereas nobody has
charged against the Hon. Member for London his pertina-
city in striving to enforce the Ballot, as if it sprung from
sordid or unworthy motives—nobody has accused or
will accuse Mr. Grote of advocating secret suffrage
for the sake of his own pecuniary interest, or that of
his brother bankers. Such -a mode of election might