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

established habits. The country must still trust to the forbear.

ante of landlords over the tenants that had a right to It
would seem like a very bad precaution if the House were to

adopt this new and untried method, if, after all, it was to afford
no security further than what the country already possessed
against landlords using their influence tyrannically. He was
not one of those who denied that, at present, in very many
cases an undue, he would say in some cases a tyrrannical, in-
fluence was exercised over voters ; nor did he, however agree
with his Hon. Friend the Member for Knaresborough, that it
was proper to prevent the influence of democracy by extend-
ing the influence of property so far as to restrain men from
giving their votes according to their consciences. He had
great confidence that the influence which was now so often
exercised in a tyrannical manner would not, in the course of
time, and under the progress of public opinion, be so exercised.
He was willing to trust to this remedy, rather than to seek a
remedy in the Ballot, and he felt assured of an increasing or
progressive spirit of forbearance on the part of those whose
property enabled them to exercise an influence over voters.
In his view of the subject, the probability was, that as public
opinion gained ground, now that the people of England had
the power of choosing their Representatives under the Reform
Bill, the exercise of influence to which he had alluded
would become more and more odious every day, and that it
would be gradually forborne. His Hon. add Learned Friend
had stated that great influence had been unduly exercised in
the late election for the county of Devon. He was not going
into the circumstances of that election ; but he must be al-
lowed to state, that in many of such instances the exercise of
the influence had personally been most painful to him, because
many had voted for him at a sacrifice of personal interests,
whilst others had voted under influence against him who had
voted for him on the previous occasion. But the question was,
whether the power was exercised generally and extensively, or
not? He could only say, that in the former Devonshire elec-
tion, although he had been opposed, and warmly opposed, the
same degree of influence had not been exercised, and persons
who had been upon his Committees until the election had com-
menced, had been compelled to turn against him even on the
day previous to the election. This influence was net am ordi-
nary degree of influence. It was not the influence usually
exercised at elections, but it had been thought that the elec-
tion was one in which a great triumph might be obtained, and
a most exaggerated importance had been attached to it by
those who had been opposed to him. Men had even supposed
that by a triumph over him at that election, all the sinecures
and abuses of the Irish Church might be preserved.—( Cries
of " Oh, oh," from the Opposition benches.) And they had
been so sanguine as to think that all abuses whatever, both in
Church and in Corporations, would be kept up if they could
obtain a triumph over him on that occasion.—( Cries of
" Hear, hear.") In fact they had attached a very false and
exaggerated importance to the election in every respect, and
in no former election had he ever known the influence spoken
of carried to such a length. His belief, however, was, that if
the Reform Bill were allowed to go on without any great change,
its tendency would be to gradually, though slowly, establish a
freedom of election, and that cases of undue interference on
the part of the landlords would become very rare and unfre- '
quent in the course of a few years. Was it too much to ask
that after so great a constitutional change as the Reform Bill
the House should pause for a time, and see if it would not pro-
duce the effects which had been originally anticipated, and
which it had already, to a very great extent, fulfilled? Ano-
ther argument of his Honourable and Learned Friend had
been that, although landlords under the Ballot might find out
how tenants and dependants had voted, if they spoke the
truth, they would have no difficulty in uttering falsehoods in
reply to questions on the subject. He (Lord J. Russell) could
not say that the question of the Ballot came recommeuded to
him with any special force or favour, when its advocates
assured him that a very great portion of voters throughout
the kingdom, in answer to the question of what part they
had taken in the election, would be induced to answer by a
direct falsehood. He would fairly and freely say that his con-
viction was that the electors would give no such answer. He
believed that the Ballot would not have the effect of produc-
ing any such falsehood, nor, in his opinion, would it have
the effect of producing secresy.—( Hear.) In every village
it would be inquired how many persons had voted, and how
they had voted, and he believed that the general result would
be that persons would have no hesitation in speaking the
truth upon the subject. The Noble Lord the Member for
Northumberland had saielAhat he thought the system of Bal-
lot would produce injurious effects even with respect to bri-
bery. Where there was no scrutiny into votes, it was by
far more easy to distribute wholesale bribery. Whilst he
thought that the system of vote by Ballot did not come so
recommended to him as to induce him to adopt it, at the
same time he could not but consider that, under any circum-
stances, it was to be viewed as a change at variance with all
the common notions and habits of the people, with all the
established practices of Parliament, and with the entire con-
stitutional history of the country. Let the Hon. Members
look at the Courts of Justice. The Judges pronounced their
opinions not by Ballot, but openly. It was true that the de-
liberations of Juries were secret, but then, on the other
hand, they were obliged to be unanimous in their verdict.
Let them then consider the proceedings of the two Houses of
Parliament. The deliberations of the two Houses were open
deliberations, and the conduct, as well as the votes, of every
Member, was known to his constituency and to the kingdom
in general. The same might be said with respect to the Exe-
cutive Ministers of the Crown. le was true that they de-
liberated in secret, bnt if they wished to yropose any measure
the result of that deliberation became thereby known, and
the Ministers were to stand or fall by the discussions that
took place on the merits of the case. In fact, it was tie
wholesome practice of the country that all functionaries, that
all persons whatsoever, that exercised any authority over life,
limb, or the liberty of their fellow-subjects, should exercise it
under the responsibility of the controul of public opinion, and
this had always proved to be the most wholesome of all checks
upon their actions. But it was proposed that in this instance
alone the act of voting for a representative in. Parliament,
should be an act of secrecy, an act subject to no responsibility
whatever. He must at once say that without a proof of the
absolute necessity of such a system—without he was forced to
adopt it by the most positive necessity—without he was c'r.-
vinced that it was the only way in which men could give their
votes fairly and freely, he could not be brought to adopt such
a system of secrecy. He would give voters at elections, like
all other persons exercising other powers, the means of voting
openly before the world ; and he firmly believed that in the
end, although a partial exercise of undue influence might for
a time exist, yet in the end a free election of Members of
Parliament would be established, and he believed that the
country was now arriving at that point, and that the present
House of Commons was a fair representation of the people of
England. He should decidedly oppose the motion.
Lord STANLEY rejoiced at the declaration he had just
heard from the Noble Lord, for the speech the Noble Lord had
just delivered had afforded to his mind the satisfactory assu-
rance that it was the settled purpose of the present Govern-
ment of Lord Melbourne, as it had been the determination of
the Government of Earl Grey, to resist the introduction into
that House of the question of the Ballot. If he were satisfied
with the tone of the speech of his Noble Friend, he must con-
fess that he was the more surprised at the course which the
Noble Lord had adopted on this occasion.—( Cheers.) He
should have thought that the Noble Lord, having made up his
mind consistently with the pledges that had been given upon
the subject by Earl Grey, and in accordance with those pledges
that had been given by Lord Althorp on the introduction of
he Reform Bill—that the Noble Lord having made up his

mind to resist all future encroachments upon the Constitution,
he would have pursued a course more consistent with the
greatness of the subject, and have deemed it more expedient
to set the question at once at rest by a direct negative.—
( Cheers.) This would have been more eligible than, by
moving the previous question, to induce the House to come to
a decision inconsistent with the grounds on which the case was
really resisted. In 1833, in 1834, there had been no such
hesitation in meeting this question.—( Hear, hear.) Im-
mediately after he had felt it his painful duty to quit the
Government of which Earl Grey was the head, his Lord-
ship had thought it necessary in the House of Lords to
express broadly and decidedlj his sentiments with respect to
the.general policy he had pursued, and especially with re-
spect to the great measure of Parliamentary Reform. He
had said that in introducing the Reform Bill he had thought
it right to make the measure extensive, in order that he might
take his stand on it, and consider it as a final measure. This
was not the first time that the question of the Ballot had been
introduced into the discussions of that House, andby the Hon.
Gentleman the Member for the City of London. But how
was the measure met by Earl Grey in 1833—by the previous
question ?—( Hear, hear.) No—he met it on by a far
higher principle of consistency and honour.—( Hear, hear.)
Did he meet it upon the ground of the pledges that had been
given by one side of the House, and received by the other—
on the ground that those who bad supported and those who
had opposed Reform had reserved to themselves the question
of the Ballot ? No—Earl Grey met the question on a higher
principle of honour. He did not resort to the previous ques-
tion ; but he met the case by the direct negative, and was
supported by a great majority of the House, by a majority of
more than two to one. He would read Lord Althorp's words
on that occasion, and then let the House consider the deter-
mined manner in which he had met the question. Lord Al-
thorp had said that he appealed to every Gentleman that heard
it. This, recollect the House, was on the motion in favour of the
Ballot, brought forward by the Hon. Member for the City of
London, that had made the motion now pending be-
fore the House. Yes—the leader in that House of Earl
Grey's Government, the leader of th. 3 first Reformed Parlia-
ment; had said, that although his private opinion was in favour
of the Ballot, he felt that, in point of honour and duty,
he was bound to meet the motion, not with the previous ques-
tion, but with the direct negative. He appealed to every
Gentleman in that House, during the whole proceedings on
the Reform Bill, whether the promoters of the measure had
not declared that, as far as a Reform of Parliament was con-
cerned, the Reform Bill was a final measure ? He (Lord
Stanley) might be told that this pledge did not include the
Ballot, but he would reply that Lord Althorp'e speech was de-
livered in opposition to the motion in favour of the vote by
Ballot.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") Why, he asked, was not
the present a fit time for discussing the question of the Ballot?
--( Hear.) When could the time be fitter ? The House might
at that moment go into all the facts and merits of the case as
sell as it had done in 1833, or as it could by any possibility do
in 1837. He had great doubts how far he could accede to the
proposition, that circumstances did not allow the question to
be settled at the present instant. For his part, he (Lord
Stanley) would not enter into the question of the South Devon
election. The Learned Member for Liskeard had entered
pretty elaborately into an analysis of the votes, and had told the
House that of the householders and freeholders, the majority
of the householders had voted for his Noble Friend, but that the
scale had been turned by Tory magistrates, Tory landlords, and
the Tory clergy.—( Cries of " No, no.") He was certain that
the Hon. and Learned- Gentleman had said that the result