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

to,
under a feeling of responsibility to the public. The
°tent• „ ni •Ijln to doirve, s ••, -;• ,-ion ,• ,
i;t11, whether he might agree or differ w oil those around
I,'“ (Hear.) He was no more accountable to them for
1;84
well 111
isac ig e thana m , they were accountable to him for theirs.
I Sir, continued the Honourable Gentle-
nn, to detain you longer, I think it imperatively necessary to
lir one other argument which is often employed against the
lue„Qt• We are told that it will annihilate the legitimate in-
it;
:tee of property—that it will take away from rich men a
poo_ arY and beneficial guidance which they now exercise over
th r and humble electors. Ido not despair of showing that
oevery reverse of this is the truth ; that not a fragment or
btlof the legitimate influence of property will be impaired
➢ titi
ttan.,e Ballot. It is, indeed, necessary that we should under-
m„' What gentlemen mean by the legitimate influence of
itnl'ertY, and how far they are pleased to extend it. Do they
thln that the rich are 4 entitled to appropriate to themselves
elective franchise which the law has conferred upon the
or Is? Is it contended that a tenant is under obligation, moral,
or political, to vote for the person whom his landlord
eerpouse, whatever may be his own feelings or judgment ?
'1 he be condemned to transfer his suffrage from Whig to
:j
oy! according as his landlord moy change his politics, or
ptie"ling as the farm which he occupies may. change pro-
% 'Ors, as if he were pars domils, non pars retpublice--as if
ktelitical conscience (to use the phrase of Paley) were a
iperY which he could not afford to keep? Is the legitimate
pf,ttetee of the rich understood to imply the entire extinction
%Zee will and independent judgment on the part of poor elec-
it;;? If this be what is meant by legitimate influence, I
hitch my imagination in vain to discover what influence can
kmtibly be illegitimate ; for the most barefaced bribery could
` Produce worse political effects than this degrading vassal-
t6e, It were far better that the poor man should possess no
7 at all than that he should possess a vote subject to such
tnnensured interference, which disguises the most servile
br,triint under the hollow forms of citizenship. In my view
the case, Sir, no influence can be legitimate which is incon-
,;nt with the rights and station of a freeman—no such influ-
-7 can be even tolerated, according to English ideas and
Les of action. And it is idle to call a man a freeman, if he be
1"41,at liberty to exercise those rights, civil, social, and politi-
fm_ Which the law confers upon him, according to his own
k 7 choice and conscience, without let or hindrance.
Itijieh man, be his wealth ever so great, can pretend
The influence
or righteously, to trample down this boundary.
Le influence which he exercises must be an influence over
en, not over slaves, or clients, or vassals—an influence
14
g filed and sanctioned and ensured by their own concurrence
0 free will. Legitimate influence supposes willing followers
tio en honourable obedience : it excludes all abject submis-
ki; springing from constraint and fear. Now, Sir, I hold
` this legitimate influence will be preserved just as much
fader the Ballot as under open suffrage—without counteraction
4thatement. Exercised as it is over none but willing sub-
-I`lB, it will be just as complete and as effective in secret as
kPublic. The men who obey such guidance feel no hard-
-1,115 in it, nor any disposition to elude or renounce it. They
et" a leader whom they esteem and honour, whose social
vltion they look up to, and whose character and be-
etir they regard with affection and reverence. If, Sir,
h„l
pt; desire to retain this legitimate influence of property
e* unalloyed, and in full vigour and vitality, while,
for the same time, you effectually disarm that brute
Nee of wealth which now presses down the poor
t's will and conscience—if you seriously desire to
4mitre,, these great and valuable ends, you will adopt the vote
uatot. I shall not believe, Sir, until I hear it actually
kliireed, that any Gentleman in this House will brand the
ell (It as an innovation on the Constitution, and as belong.ing.
tiolYi to democracy. How can the Ballot alter your Constitu-
Is there a man in the country whose legal rights and
vi,teges the Ballot will either extend or curtail, even by a
ogle hair? Will it confer any new political rights, or im-
o etY new civil disabilities ? Sir, the Ballot will do none
e these things ; and how then can it alter the form of your
°estitution, either for better or for worse ? What is your
e 0
lkitstitution except an aggregate of legal and political rights
I
obligations, distributed in a certain manner among your
eol utens ; and if all these remain the same, severally as well as
Lectively, how can your Constitution be anything different
1:071!L what it was before ? Again, let me compare my pro-
Itien with that of the Hon. Member for Shaftesbury. Is
to:r1 s an
of the
one who will tell him that his Bill alters
ss the land-
Constitution—that in trying to suppre coercive
ttence over votes, he is guilty of a piece of odious demo-
ttakidcY ? And what is the difference between his proposition
,teine, except that I fully accomplish that which he sin-
etY, but ineffectually aims at? That end is, free and
cone-
voting—the genuine and unadulterated opinion of
qualified electors. The Ballot will give you nothing less
in this ; but at the same time it cannot give you anything
tire, or anything worse. Vindex tacit libertatis. Is this
tilPLlrpose foreign to the Constitution ? If it be, then I affirm
Mantes,
Your Constitution is an assemblage, not of checks and
eLauces, but of cheats and fictions. You call the House of
eltrnons a representative assembly, and you qualify certain
ttsons as electors ; but what are they, after all, when you
ve so qualified them ? They are distinguished from their
titonntrymen by a peculiar badge of servitude and legalized
ependance. It is not they twho elect members—it is
the A • ristocracy who elect by and through their voices.
Your register of voters becomes nothing better than a re-
ter of men liable to electoral impressment—liable to
plea
Iled upon to do compulsory voting-duty, whenever it
-tits es their commanders to issue warrants for their attend-
e:e• And is this, after all, the real heart and kernel of the
twee
this the arcanum imperii which Gentlemen
thee so much delight in holding forth to public view, when
tell us that the purpose of the Ballot is unconstitutional
dnd democratical ? I venture to say, that the fiercest and most
tiutious of all the decried newspapers has never put forth a
ta°tl;e deadly libel against the Constitution than this, the alle-
dt,l,°ll of its extreme panegyrists—the allegation that it repu-
I.:Les free and independent voting, as a dangerous novelty, fo-
t;„len to its genius and spirit. Sir, I affirm, and I defy con-
tiz7lietion that free and independent voting is the most consti-
te lenal of all constitutional things, and that all the means
tjessary for such an end must be constitutional also. Well,
t," some ed Gentlemen may say, we admit all this ; but we con .
at that you have free and independent voting as things stand
pr,Ptesent. Is this, indeed, so? Then, I ask, what can you
i""sibly have to fear from the ballot? Reasoning on this at,-
igiption, the Ballot will no more vary the course of our poll-
te,l affairs than it will vary the orbits of the planets. But
ite.`, an assumption is not for a moment to be tolerated—
trill not true—it is not even an approximation to the
thet't• There is the amplest proof that your suffrage is
hie very reverse of free; and, therefore, the measure
th,h emancipates it will work a salutary and important
ti;nge. But it is a change, the extent of which every man
th,,,11 see and measure—a change which can only land you in
Yileand natural haven of a representative assembly, the
,disturbed manifestation of real electoral feelings. Let me
ind you, Sir, that the dignity, the usefulness, the moral
t„elndancy, of this House, depend upon its possessing the
ere and unqualified confidence of the people ; and that of
there is no 'other constitutional test except the free and
11,7
t"'iassed choice of the electors. Let me remind you that
e Arat and greatest interests of the State—the tie of affee-
t°nate reverence which binds a nation to its elective Legisla-
tt:e--the inducements for the rich to respect the conscience,
cultivate the attachment, and to improve the understand-
hg% *the poor--all these inestimable objects are at stake in
the integrity and independence of the suffrage. You insure
y,„Q,111) beyond suspicion or contest, by granting the Ballot :
" never can insure them without it.—( Loud cheers.) I
therefore beg to move, That it is the opinion of this House,
hat the votes at elections for Members of Parliament should
taken by way of secret Ballot."—( Cheers. )
Sir W. MOLE SWORT H then rose to second the motion.
e Said if there was one fact more clearly established than
/tltlother by the unanimous testimony of all parties it was this—
;at during the late election the grossest intimidation had pre-
'ed•—( Hear, hear.) Each defeated candidate invariably
Zeribed the loss of his election to intimidation ; complaints of
(plidation were to be found in every election petition._
ear, hear.) There was the undoubted, most explicit, and
4°st valuable testimony of the Noble Lord at the bead of the
One Department, that he had lost his election for South
t'on solely through the continued and systematic intimida-
t, of the Tory landlords and Parsons.—( Hear, hear.) Intl-
;ilidation had, within the last few weeks, been resolutely car-
on in Yorkshire, Staffordshire, and Inverness-shire.—
ear, hear.) Meanwhile the people were the sufferers ; and
dllO protect them in the exercise of the electoral franchise which
ti4Ltt been bestowed upon them—not to give the predominance
Lily particular party—was the motive which induced him to
CPPort the motion of his Hon. Friend the Member for Lon-
-4”--( Hear, hear.) He did not care whether the Ballot had
ke aristocratic or a democratic tendency ; all he contended for
hthat the Ballot was by far the best, the only means of en-
ilag freedom of election ; and all who acknowledged the
e°ry of a representative government must necessarily ac-
ttetvledge thatfreedom of ection was all-important. —( Hear.
kerne Hon, Gentlemen seemed to think that intimidation could
Prevented by penal enactments. Those Hon. Gentlemen
''n.st be but slightly acquainted with the common modes of inti-
tation. Landlords seldom directly informed their tenants
that punishment would follow disobedience. They merely so-
toed the votes of their tenants, and left the evils consequent
til;34 a refusal to be inferred ; and this was in most cases suffi-
ly-nt•-- (Hear.) The Hon. Baronet instanced a case in the late
evon election of a body of tenantry, almost all of whom had
itt
a former contested election voted for the Noble Lord the
meretary for the Home Department, but who, without the
f;liatest cbange'in their political sentiments, now voted against
ihirP• He ( Sir W. Molesworth) inquired the reason, and was
'cinned that at the first election the landlord had abstained
ron .
let ‘o all interference, but that on this occasion he had written a
thewhich was taken to each of the tenantry by an opponent
Noble Lord, wherein he stated, that though he did not
tsish
t; compel his tenantry to vote contrary to their inclina.-
f,142, yet if any of them had not made up their minds he should
lunch obliged by their voting for his candidate, Mr. Parker.
Some of the tenants abstained from going to the poll at all—the
Attainder voted against the Noble Lord.—( Hear, hear. )
eUld any penal enactments prevent this, the commonest and
14'
Otteeffective species of intimidation ? ( Hear, hear.) At the
to election in Devonshire, gentlemen who once held liberal
t:vii'inions suddenly were found to have apostatised ; and along
11th them whole bands of tenantry seemed, as it were, miracti-
b°usly to change their opinions.—( Hear, hear, hear.) It had
e asserted that it was the cry of " No Popery" which had
influenced the electors of Devon. Some of them had, no doubt,
Le'Rned it as the only means of concealing their real slavery ;
t though he ( Sir W. Molesworth) could not.from his own per-
tr„el knowledge, speak highly either of the intelligence or edu-
en of the electors of that county in general, yet he could not
t 0
o4telv that they were so beastly stupid, so miserably ignorant,
.as
have credited the falsehoods which were so industriously cir-
tliafed on this subject, or to have
•believed the assertions of
" clergyman, who told his pariiniQuers when assembled in