The Sun.
London, England, 1866-07-18 00:00:00

TUE BALLOT.

Mr. BERKELEY said he held in his hand a petition
from the inhabitants of Bridgenorth, which ho begged to
move should be read by the clerk at the table.
The petition, which was in favour of the ballot, was
then read.

Mr. BERKELEY then rose to move " that, having re-
gard to the failure of all direct legislation against corrupt
practices at parliamentary elections, it is expedient to
make experiment of the system of taking the votes at such
elections anonymously, according to the laws now in force
in other parts of her Majesty's dominions." He said he
feared he must not expect any great favour in bringing
forward this question in the present House of Commons,
which had steadily opposed reform, and shown itself hos-
tile to extending the privileges of the working classes. For
29 years during his service in parliament he had been pain-
fully impressed with the evils which had crept into our
electoral system, and which had from the commencement of
her Majesty's reign been steadily on the increase.: No
doubt our electoral constitution in its original state was
well adapted to give the people that voice in the election
of representatives which free fltstitutions demanded, but of
our electoral constitution in its present state of abominable
demoralisation we had every reason to be ashamed. (Hear,
hear.) There was no hon. member who, would dare to
gainsay that each elector ought to vote freely and in-
differently, without fear of consequences. He would
call the attention of the house to a few of our greatest
authorities. Lord Russell had said. " our most an-
cient statutes, our greatest constitutional laws, and
our best maxims, lay down the proposition that the
people of England ought to elect their representa-
tives freely and indifferently." No doubt his lordship
referred to the opinions of such men as Walpole,
who spoke in eulogistic terms of the privilege of electing
members to serve in Parliament; to Burke, who, speaking
of the electoral franchise, said '•his unbiassed opinion, his
mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, the elector
ought to sacrifice to no man living." Lord Chief Justice
Holt had said—" It is a great privilege to vote for those
who make the laws which govern life and property—a pri-
vilege not to be deputed to another." If to delegate it were
to depute it to another, what should they say to its being
continually wrested from the rightful owners and used by
others who could have no possible claim to it, more
especially by that noble class of non-electors who were
forbidden by the orders of that house to interfere in elec-

tions ? The miserable state of our electoral system was I
admitted on all hands, and was the laughing-stock of
Europe. As they had found no other remedy, he asked the
house to try that which the most enlightened writers, from
Daniel Defoe down to Jeremy Bentham and J. Mill had in-
sisted on as the one most likely to produce purity of elec-
tions, and the principle which was adopted by England's
greatest Parliament in the year 1628 under the advocacy of
Hamilton, Pym, Elliott, and Coke; which a century after-
wards passed the House of Commons under the advocacy
of Walpole, but was rejected in the Lords by the Opposi-
tion of Godolphin ; and which in the present century had
had the advocacy of Lord Macaulay, Sheil, Molesworth,
Bethell, and many others. (Hear hear.) He was con-
sequently asking the house to make an experiment for
which he had some little sanction, and he hoped that
no; young member jwould accuse him of desiring the
adoption of a crotchet of his own. (Hear, hear.) These
great authorities had left a fortress of argument, which
although unassailable by any reasoning he had ever heard
of or read, had yet fallen from time to time under the hot
fire of unscrupulous bolts. The arguments used against
the ballot were, first, that it was unmanly ; next, that it
was un-English—(hear, hear)—thirdly, that it was not
successful where it had beeoanutaerietdho tried; and fourthly,
was a
that
trustit
was wrong in principle, because
hiseleddbyoptehnelyel.ec(toHresarfo, for
htheaernsn-eNloecdtoorns,htanhdomn.usgt4be
ieexmeern-
c
btou t
tthheeyarwguomulednnot
recogniseopposit e aptphrsovaendsowfetrshesteo athrger. enAsts,
particularly in the military
d to be very unmanly.
unmanliness, it was the modaendof
nvaovtianlg iolnnha,thaencdluot more-
particularly
passing this by, it s
to enable courts-martial
tary and naval men werheonniodt sit3leppose
remembered that an act of
Parliament was passed every year
to vote in secret.
farce,
and
(Hear, hear.) He thoeufgahetortehtatnota
word could be said against the manliness voting.
That the ballot was un-English was a complete
thha ed t
beenhi r third
to r
ej ed c, t
wi o
ans ,
et
qh
ua
at hadtyeri.
nbeenu
fn
es
ru
thece unsuccessful t r
aw r
yh e rwe a it
a
the fact. He would first refer to America. (Hear, hear.)
He thought he should have a cheer. (Laughter.) But that
was an ironical cheer from a member opposite. Ho bad
never held up America for modes of voting which this
crioeuldetlrlyp ought
Americato a
ims ingithataev.On the contrary, he had always
shunned, for in America a
nsayn stem
mighwthch
sitinkouhgisht to
voting
e
paper in his hat, or hold it in his hand—he had seen men
do it —for every one to see. Yet open voting in America
had led to great corruption and intimidation, and
tchaewboaulllodt,tahuindktothhoasevemoadpemnenvowtinhgo eposeyroeprynd'antoillaboAralisehri
instead. The ballot protected the voters from evil conse-
quences—from violence and Lynch law, from drunkenness
and demoralisation ; and so the Americans had got the
ballot. When his royal highness was in Philadelphia there
was an election going on, but there was no disorder. People
were seen in the streets talking in knots, but there was no
more disorder than in an English town on a market day—

there was no drunkenness, no roughs, no lambs, and no
men in the moon—(laughter)—and any person might ven-
ture to ask his royal highness what he thought of an elec-
tion in America and in this civilised country. He had on
former occasions adverted to Belgium. There were many
gentlemen from that country now being entertained by
the volunteers, and they could say whether they would
like to give up their system for our own. He might refer
to Paris, where the people voted by ballot against and in
the very teeth of the Government, and they continually
proved that they could so vote without coercion. His
friend, Sir John Bowling, had lately received a letter from
Paris, in which the writer scouted the idea that the ballot
was not successful in France, and he (Mr. Berkeley) would
be happy to hear any evidence to the contrary. In 1862
there were commissioners from the colonies in Australia to
the Great Exhibition, and while they were in this country
certain questions were put to them by the Ballot Society,
and the answers were that voting by ballot quite prevented
the way in which a man voted from becoming known un-
less he chose to mention it; that it prevented bribery
disorder—and that diminished expenses. The Times had
written against manhood suffrage and the ballot—two
things which had no connexion—but the Melbourne cor-
respondent of that paper took it to task, and wrote in
favour of the ballot. There could be no doubt that the
ballot had worked well in the Australian colonies. The
fourth objection against the ballot was a very paltry one,
sae
ci trustln t
lhye
itd
bmanyttsdetlasebec tuonerxssoefurocnridsot. hdletb ewna
openlyse fit thiaontf tonhr
doenef-r are ltnehccaht
toisrnse,o
wnefeanslectors might
know how electors discharged their trust. He had no ob-
jection to calling the franchise a trust ; but it was a trust
with a limit, and with functions clearly defined, and
they were that electors should vote freely and indif-
ferently, without fear or reward. If electors voted
openly they could not discharge the functions of
their trust. Non-electors were either whigs, tories, or
radicals, and were frequently strong partisans, and pushed
their opinions to extremities. If a Tory non-elector found
an elector voting for a Whig he was base. If a Whig non-
elector discovered an elector voting for a Tory he was
faithless ; and a Radical non-elector considered an elector
unworthyif he did not support the Radical candidate. That
was the consequence' of open voting. What was the re-
sponsibility of an elector ? It might be financial ruin—per-
sonal violence—notice to quit by his landlord from his
house and home ; and in many cases that reduced a man to
poverty. " You take my life when you do take the means
by which I live" might very often by said by electors.
Those were responsibilities which electors ought not to
bear. (Hear.) He would next refer to a resolution of the
great Parliament of 1628. The House of Commons at that
time decreed that the elective right was not a franchise in
the nature of a possession or a privilege, but a service to
be used pro bane publico ; the elector was to discharge those
services as his conscience dictated. Next as to the demo-
ralisation in which constituents were sometimes plunged,
and upon that he would say one word in reference to an
election which had just taken place at Guildford. Now
he quite concurred in the opinion that the appointment of
Mr. Bovill to the office which he held was as graceful to
the Government as it WMS honourable to the hon. and learned
gentleman himself. (Hear.)
,When at Guildford as a can-
didate—whether blushing under the honours which had
been showed upon him he did not know-4-the hon. and
learned gentleman used these remarks in reply to some
person who asked him whether he would vote for the bal-
lot : " I will not. (Hear.) To be a representative of the
people was a great trust ; and what would they think of
their representatives voting by ballot ?" What would they
think, indeed ! (Laughter.) He (Mr. Berkeley) had heard
of a man who, when asked if he could speak the German
language, said he did not think that he could, but he
had a brother who could play the German flute. (Oh,
oh.) There was just as much analogy between the
functions of an elector and a member of Parliament as be-
tween the German language and the German flute. (Laugh-
ter and " hear.") An elector was answerable to no one. If
his vote was given freely and indifferently, he discharged
the duty imposed upon him by law. He could not be re-
warded or punished, but members of Parliament could be
both rewarded and punished. They made their speeches
upon the busting; and if they did not act up to tLem the
electors knew what to do, and therefore he would repeat
there was just as much analogy between the German lan-
guage and the German flute. (Hear, hear.) The hon. and
learned gentleman while at Guildford went on to say that
he trusted the time would never come when honest Eng-
lishmen would be afraid to record their votes openly.
(Hear, hear.) It might be very well for the Solicitor Ge-
neral, with his position and his wealth, to say ho could go
to the poll and record his vote openly, but let them sup-
pose the case of William Bovill, the tallow-chandler, or a
man dependent on another, and could it be said that the
time had come when he could record his vote without fear.
(Hear, hear.) There were thousands of such cases, and this
was not confined to the working classes but extended to
the educated classes. He would cite one class—the ,medi-
cal profession. What young medical man, with a rising
family, dare give a vote ? If they wanted an answer to
this lot them take any directory, and having found the
names of the medical anon, turn to the register and then to
the poll-book, and they would be satisfied that that class of
moo, who were rarely qualified by their education to give
a vote, were virtually excluded from doing so. Was there
no intimidation at Guildford?— no interference by high
personages? He held in his hand a letter from Earl Percy's
steward, dated Albury, July 10—" Mr. Dowling.—Please
make up my bill, as I may probably desire to close the
accounts on Saturday next." (Hear, hear.) He would
mention another case, in which he might be exc.usod
from naming the individual. A tradesman at Guildford
attended at Albury-park, the seat of the Earl of Percy, the
day before the election, having received a message that a
certain person there, whom he (Mr. Berkeley) would not
name, but who certainly had a right to command, wished
to see him, and that person, whose name would not be
stated, asked the tradesman howhe intended to'vote. The
tradesman said he had not made up his mind—(laughter)—
and the intimation was immediately conveyed to him—
" Unless you vote for the Solicitor-General you shall never
do any more work in this house :" and the statement was
likewise made that it was the intention of Lord Percy to
send for the poll-book, and that ho never more would em-
ploy those who voted against the Solicitor-General. He
(Mr. Berkeley) had reason to believe that these statements
could be fairly borne out ; at all events, they invited in-
quiry. If they were true, he might fairly say the Solicitor
General was a little two-faced when he said that the honest
Englishman ought never to be afraid to give his vote.
With regard to the demoralisation of constituents, Mr. Ma-
caulay, Mr. Brooke, and others came to the conclusion, after
the Reform Bill of 1832, that the fatal omissions in that
bill were the close and rotten boroughs, and the neglect to
protect the electors at the poll. Things went on until Lord
Aberdeen's administration, when an act was passed which
had the evident intention of protecting delinquent candi-
dates, because the candidates could get off on any pretence;
and although the punishment, if any, went to the elector,
it was in point of fact nugatory, because no jury could be
found to convict. Of that bill Lord Derby had said it was
of no more use than so much waste paper, and yet it
went to the country ; and now, after their septennial
saturnalia, and smarting from its orgies, here they were,
helpless and hopeless, with that act of parliament for their
guide. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Instead of its being
a Corrupt Practices._ Prevention Act, it was a Corrupt
Practices Encouragement Act, and was so viewed through-
out the country. If the house doubted the position in
which they were placed, let them look at the loading
Tory papers. He supposed they might now call the Times
the leading Tory paper—(laughter)—but the Standard and
Morning Herald had been supposed to occupy that posi-
tion. They complained loudly of the state of things at the
last elections. Sir G. Jenkinson, the Apry baronet, had
stated that he was told at the election for Nottingham at
two o'clock on the polling day that, he could win the elec-
tion-if he would resort to certain means, but he preferred
saving his honour and losing the election. The h[m. ba-
ronet added subsequently that if the ballot would provide
a remedy for such a state of things he would vote for it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer was another authority
as to the insufficiency of the existing means of preventing
bribery and corruption, and as he (Mr. Berkeley) had
looked in vain in the address of the present Chancellor of
the Exchequer for a declaration on the subject, and as
Lord Derby did not propose a remedy, he (Mr. Berkeley)
asked the.house to accept his resolution. Ho advised the
hon. member for Westminster (Mr. Mill), who had back-
elided to some extent on this subject, to support the mo-
tion. He found in that column of the local paper a charge
against the Duke of Somerset of having evicted his tenants
without any ceremony or any other pretence than that
they voted against him, and that none but those who voted
for him should live in his houses. He hardly dare trust
himself with reading it, but it was so. (Cries of " Read.")
Well, besides that, there was a statement in a newspaper
that the Marquis of Bath had evicted 12 of his tenants at
Frome, without any other reason being assigned than that
they had all voted for the Liberal candidate. These were
statements publicly made, and ho did not think that any
man, however exalted his station, was too high to give a
contradiction to them, if they were untrue. At all events,
if the aristocracy of England allowed such accusations to
go forth without proof, they did themselves a great in-
justice in not contradicting them. He had like-
wise the statement of Mr. Whitmore, at one time
mayor of Bridgnorth, but as be had presented
that gentleman's petition that night, and had it
also read. at the table, he would not further digtte on it,
except to slate that that gentleman was turned out of
his house on account of the manner in which he yoted.
He trusted, therefore, that he should be successful in gain-
ing his bon. friend's vote. But he was afraid that when
great philosophical characters got hold of some point, there
was very 'great difficulty in inducing them to let it go.
(Laughter.) At all events, if his respected father were
here, he would say to him, " My son, stick to the ballot, and
neglect the whim of the moment." (Loud laughter). That,
therefore,
gteod.theHehouno.
wmessmkbeerd, fteeheblhyoubuset
b zealously
inh
te n
to try the experiment of the ballot, not in his own name,
sd
oa n accountunw orthoyf fears
their
a
nwaadmshehooinsfetashptra ueyiellulrstrious men whom he had quoted.
calledolifethe people, up upon nf hr ot nh .e
they
membersgh might
b trusted teo
tdriusmis all
loyalty and honesty. The people, however, felt that the
house would not give them the protection of the ballot,