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

final or conclusive measure. He contended that the Reform Bill
did not afford sufficient security to open voting, and that voteb;
Ballot was the only free and secure means of exercising the
elective franchise with independence. He assured the House
that in conferring that privilege on any man, they invested him
with a power of the greatest importance to the State, and
that when they placed in his hands a trust of so much mo-
ment, they ought necessarily to deal with him as a free
and intelligent agent. The provisions of the Reform Bill, when
they invested him with the functions of the elective franchise,
meant nothing else than that it should be so dealt with.
The contrary of this would be to imply that the franchise was
given merely for the purpose of making them tools and irre-
sponsible agents. If it were the intention of the legislature to
make them such, let them not entice men of honour and inte-
grity to accept of such a questionable privilege. He anti-
ticipated that the legislature had no such intention
as this, and that it was intended that by the franchise was '
meant the free votes of the people. When a man's vote was '
taken in secret he was quite sure that it would be honest,
however erroneous his opinions might be. But when the
votes were taken openly, the tongue was not always the true
herald of the wishes. The voter may have a thousand rea-
sons why he should vote contrary to his private wishes. He
may be desirous of conciliating the favour of a great man—he
may be over-borne by the solicitation of friends or the threats of
his superiors, to whom his honest vote might be likely to give
offence—and thus his comforts, his station, and prosperity may
be depending upon his keeping well with one party or the
other. Hon. Members must be perfectly aware that in open
voting there could even be a conflict between solicitation or in-
timidation on the one side, and his conscience on the other. Such
a conflict was evil enough in itself ; but when they were also
aware that it kept people from registering—that it kept them
from the poll—overpowering their free choice—frustrating the
end and object of the representative system and giving but an
imperfect expression of the opinions of the constituencies they
would all admit that the question was one of very great mag-
nitude and importance. The system of open voting gave an
opportunity to intermeddling persons to tamper with the
votes of the people, and that was abundantly exem-
plified in the system of election as it at present stood. Sure
he was of this, that throughout the whole course of the last
general election, there was scarcely c.ry newspaper in town
or country, whatever its politics might be, whether Whig,
Tory, or Radical, which did not contain protestations against
undue influence. There was scarcely an election in which
it had not been felt, whether in Yorkshire, Devonshire, Staf-
fordshire, or any other place. The coercive influence of the
landlords over the tenant could not be doubted, for it was
counted upon among the many other complex interests
which were generally considered available.—( Hear, hear.)
They had the influence of the landlord over the tenant,
the manufacturer over the operative, the master over the ser-
vant, and the attorney over his client ; all these were part and
parcel of a man's electioneering strength, and if any man
generously declined to avail himself of them, he was most
certain of defeat. On some occasions it was stated that the
landlords did not mean to coerce the votes of their tenants ;
but although that might be very generous, he feared that the
system was too well understood, and that the previously-
expressed opinions of the landlords were well known. How
frequently did it happen to candidates when calling upon a voter
to hear him express his good opinion, but regret that he could not
vote for him from the influence of their landlord ? Did they not
frequently keep away from the poll altogether, or until the
most urgent necessity had arisen ? Within his (Mr.
Grote's) own knowledge, tradesmen, and others, in that
class of life, had been grievously injured by their
conscientious voting. He could multiply statements and cases of
this sort, but he thought it unnecessary—he might as well at-
tempt to prove the existence of drunkenness, or crime, or poverty.
The existence of these evils were to be deplored ; they had
been felt by- several Members of the present Cabinet during
the last election, and especially by the Noble Lord, now
the Member for Stroud.—( Hear, hear.) The state-
ments of that Noble Lord, which he published in his
last address to the electors of Devonshire, were fully confirma-
tory of the opinions he (Mr, G.) had advanced with respect to
the evils of open-volin,„ and read to his mind a melancholy pic-
ture of the present working of the franchise. The Noble Lord
alluded to the threats employed at the Devonshire election,
and the effect produced, and asserted pretty plainly that had
the tenantry voted according to their own free wish, intead of
under restraint, the majority would have been in his favour. If
on this solemn occasion, when the eyes of the whole king-
dom were fixed upon the electors, they ceuld not act as they
desired,—what protection was there for freedom of election
in future ?—( Hear, hear.) And what approach had been
made towards that great object for which the Reform Bill was
passed ?—( Hear.) But this was not all. The mischiefs
attending open voting were felt in private society, and in the
domestic circle. Animosities were excited amongst friends
and associates, and a reciprocity of unkindness was created,
until the state of things approached to the nature of a civil
war. But, why should the electors be compelled to en-
dure all these evils ?—( Hear, and loud cheers.) It was
a matter of no small moment to allay the political animosities
which deranged society at every general election. But I find
that in the election last winter for the C:ity of Dublin, the
Committee of the Tory candidate came to the following reso-
lution, and advertised it publicly in the newspapers. I read
from the Morning Chronicle of January 22...—" City of Dublin
Election. At a meeting of the Committee for conducting the
election of Messrs. West and Hamilton, it was resolved una-
nimously, That in consequence of the gross system of perse-
cution and intimidation practised against the respectable
traders and shopkeepers, Roman Catholics as well as Pro-
testants, by placards and other denuncia lions, this Committee
feel bound to meet the atrocious spirit of despotismpractised at
this election, by pledging themselves to furnish to the nobility
and gentry resident in the principal sop cares and streets, and
who are the great mass of purchasers and consumers in the me-
tropolis, lists of those engaged in trade who support the views
of the sound and respectable portion of the community, as well
as with lists of those who decline to, act in conformity
with such views.' " This is a curious d ocument, as it in-
dicates in what light gentlemen who m eddle with elec-
tions regard the freedom of voters—of those voters whom
yet, with a cruel sort of mockery, they address in their
formal advertisements by the empty tithe of " Independent
electors."—( Hear, hear.) The Dublin. Committee impute
to their opponents the first beginning (if gross interference
with the freedom of election. How fe ir this imputation is
just, I do not know ; but I take the fa ets as these Con-
servative gentlemen state them. " Our opponents (they
say) have begun the war of interference on their side; there-
fore we feel both called upon and authorized to retaliate by
interference on our side. Our opponents :have terrified many
voters into voting for them ; therefore we, in self-defence, re-
sort to exclusive dealing, in order to force voters into voting
for us." Now, there might be some semi and sufficiency in
this reasoning, if an election were like ; a prize-fight or a
horse-race, where nothing was to be stud] ied but a fair start
and exact equality of advantages between tin 3 two competitors.
But is the House disposed to look at an elect don in this light ?
In my view, there are two other parties whose interest in the
case greatly outweighs that of the candidate .s. I mean, first,
the public ; and, secondly, the voters. 11 he public have a
deep interest in promoting the choice of g ood and fit repre-
sentatives ; and what guarantee can they hare for this, if the
business of election is to be a mere con& at of threats against
threats, and intimidation against intimidation ? The voters
have a still deeper interest in the business, and their treat-
ment forms the worst ingredient in the whole compound of
mischief. They seem to be considered as lawful prize and
prey, mutunt ac turpe pecus, belonging • of right to that
party which can drag them with thi! greatest vio-
lence. Not a thought is wasted either upon their feel-
ings, or on their repose, or on their inte gr ity. Two years
ago we were told to wait and see whet her the Reform
Act, by improving and extending the • constituency,
would not indirectly extirpate this misct ievous interfe-
rence. There were gentlemen who prophesie I that it would.
Let me ask them now, whether their propheei es are fulfilled ?
whether their prophecies are in any course c ar probability of
fulfilment ? I think the facts up to this mo sue at are decisively
against them ; I think the probabilities of the future are still
more decisively against them. lam persi laded that undue in-
fluence over voters was never more void ely spread, or more
formidable, than at the last general electio n ; and it is but too
evident that the efforts of the imperative classes of society to
subjugate the will of the humbler voters are nowise likely to
be suspended or relaxed for the future. -I (Hear, hear.) It is
my full belief, that the ties of dependence, in every form and
variety, will be strained tighter and tight( Ir. I doubt not that
dictation and resolutions of exclusive Belling among the
masses will be brought to bear in the opyosite direction, in
such places as admit of it, and those despots c influences which
carry the voter to the poll without a heart au ad without a con-
science will be felt everywhere more v jolentl y than ever. Such
are the signs of events as I read them. Isl hould, indeed, de-
spair of the tranquil and efficacious op erati on of the elective
principle for the future, if I did not see iin th e Ballot the means
of rescue and preservation. But are the met ins of rescue to be
found anywhere else ? What other meth ads, besides the Ballot,
have ever been suggested to eradicate st tch 'very serious evils ?
There are some gentlemen who speak of the evils in terms
of serious regret and indignant condemn ation, but who seem to
think that they have done enough by tic tnouncing the practice
of menacing and intimidating voters without any further
thought as to the means of prevention, as I if political mischief's
were to be charmed away, or shamed awe by by rhetoric. I have
heard of nothing in the way of specific suggestion for pre-
venting the practice here adverted to, ex eept the Bill brought
in by the Hon. Member for Shaftesbury. That Hon. Gentle-
man proposes to treat all acts of threatel ling or intimidation,
exercised with a view to procure votes, as legally criminal, and
to impose upon those who are found guilty • of such acts appro-
priate legal penalties. But when I look I t the Bill as a mea-
sure intended, not merely to condemn, bst t also to prevent—
when I consider not merely the Irotson whir ch it inculcates, but
the means which it affords of canopellirs g observance of that
lesson—when I look at it in this / soint of view, I am com-
pelled to say that it will prove tota 11Y null and inoperative.
—( Hear, hear.) I shall not deny - that if a Bill like this
be passed, a very angry or a very indisci eet man may
occasionally lay himself open to , its penalties. But I
contend that the general course and 1 arevalence of the evil
will not only not be arrested, but ~ even be nowise
lessened by these rare and extraordinary cases. How can
you possibly detect, and prove by legal evidence, and
punish, all the thousand ways in which t a man may convey
to his tenant, or to his tradesmen, the apprehension of
loss, in case they vote against his wishes 1 Every one knows
that c;eillsv of manner and expreosion in asking for votes is
almost universal, whatever May be the s disposition of those
who canvass, and whatever may be their -power .as to inflicting
ulterior consequences.—( Hear.) Now;-, I assert that all these
imperative requests, and all the train of oppressions inflicted
on tenants and tradesmen for refusal, may go on with perfect
impunity notwithstriscling the Bill of ti to Hon. Gent) eman. In.
so far as that Bill will be operative at all, there will be (I
doubt not, without his intending it) some degree of partiality