The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-02 00:00:00

LO I)ON,
TUESDAY EVENING. JUNE 2, 1835.

The great question of the Ballot—the subject of so
many Parliamentary pledges and hustings harangues—
stands prominently forth amongst the measures to be
brought before the House of Commons this eveninf.
As this question involves the principle of the purity

of Election, without which the Reform Bill must ever
remain a dead letter, we call upon Ministers not to
disappoint the just expectations of their best friends,
by moving its postponement, under the pretence of an
expediency, which will be regarded out of doors as a
dereliction of public duty. The Reformers of Great
Britain are by far too intelligent to be persuaded that
the question of the Ballot ought to give way to a discus-
sion on a local Bill, or a debate on distresses, agricul-

tural or commercial. They know that the free exer-
cise of the elective franchise forms the basis of the
British Constitution ; and they are now convinced, by
the experience of three centuries, that purity of elec-
tion cannot be secured in England without the Ballot.
We are aware that, among the more moderate
Whigs, there are some who object to the Ballot as
un-English--as compromising the dignified indepen-
dence of British freemen, and a great deal more in the
same hyperbolical strain. To this our answer is very
short. Real independence consists in freedom of ac-
tion, no:-. in the notoriety that may attend it. The
object of the elective franchise is to secure freedom to
the elector ; a lofty bearing is a mere accident of it—
the same as colour to a piece of painted wood. So
long as the act of voting is the same, and its conse-
quences the same, the manner of its performance
increases the value of the principle in propor-
tion as it secures greater irresponsibility of action.
But this objection, after all, is a mere assumption.
Were it a fact, the Ballot would be unnecessary. But
it is because British freemen are compelled, in self-
defence, to sacrifice their conscience to the interests of
themselves and families, that the Ballot becomes ne-
cessary to guarantee the free and irresponsible exercise
of the elective franchise. The Ballot takes away no
right—infringes upon no privilege. It neither binds
the tongue, nor ties up the right arm of the voter.
If the elector feel that he is independent, or if he d&-
sire to brave the vengeance of an ousted candidate,
he is free to proclaim his votes past, present, and fu-
ture—and as this will be a matter of choice with him-
self, it must be taken as the test of a greater freedom
of action, than a compulsory publicity attendant on
the mere act of voting, which is the case now.
But if voting by Ballot be un-English—if it betray
the presence of fear and subserviency—why is the onus
of supporting the national character exclusively placed
on the shoulders of those whose only protection against
oppression is the right of exercising the elective fran-
chise ? There must be some mistake here. Were
secret voting derogatory to individual or national cha-
racter, it would not prevail in Aristocratic clubs, in
Parliamentary Committees, and in the appointment
of Bank and East India Directors. Peers of the Realm,
Members of the House of Commons, Merchants, and
Money-dealers, must be presumed as much the guardians
of the national independence of Gre-at Britain as 101.
householders qualified to vote at a general election. There
is surely less occasion to defend the strong against the
strong, than to protect the weak against the influential
and the powerful. If the Peer finds the use of a black
ball necessary to protect him from the vengeance of
an excluded club-candidate, neither so powerful nor so
respected as himself, there surely can be nothing un-
becoming the dignity of the State in covering the pea-
sant with his Lordship's invisible lEgis, when about
to be exposed to the wrath of a person who can crush
him with a word? In Parliamentary Committees, in
clubs, in banking establishments, and in the India
House, the several members are, from their rank in so-
,ciety, raised beyond the reach of individual rancour ;
and besides, their education and acquaintance with
the laws, afford them ample facilities of protecting
themselves ; but the case is very different when the
parti:is in opposition are a landlord and his tenantrv-
at-will. The latter have no protection from the IaNNTs,
neither alv they able to protect themselves.
Perhaps it will be said that the landed Aristocracy

never interfere with the freedom of election. To those
who make this assertion we have nothing to reply.
Facts can have no weight with them, and arguments
are above their comprehension. They are alike igno-
rant of the history of past, and the occurrence of pre-
sent events. And yet they may understand us if we
ask—Why, then, is the ballot resorted to in club-
rooms ? or, why is a fictitious protection claimed by
peers, which is denied to peasants ? If it be necessary
in the one case, it must be much more so in the
other ; if it be unnecessary in both, its general adop-
tion must he a matter of the most perfect indifference
to the hereditary Legislature.
The landed Aristocracy imitate the instinctive sa-
gacity of the ostriches of the desert in effecting the
concealment of their designs. If the head is hidden,
they forget the exposure of the body. Like children,
who hide themselves by covering their eyes, they arc
foolish enough to be persuaded that because they
have succeeded in blinding themselves to the conse-
quences of their own conduct, their real motives are
therefore invisible to all the rest of the world. But it
is time to divest them of this delusion. The electors
of Great Britain are fully aware of the motives which
induce the rich and the powerful to sanction secret
voting among themselves, and at the same time
leave to the humble and the dependant the glory
of maintaining the national honour by voting openly,
and in the teeth of all but absolute power. The gilded
pill has been swallowed so often, and its effects have
been so uniformly injurious to the constitution, that the
sight of it produces loathing. Henceforth the pea-
santry will be content to follow the example of " their
natural protectors " as the landed aristocracy complai-
santly style themselves. They have lost all ambition for
alnotoriety which is either followed by individual ruin,
or national oppression. They will be satisfied with the
internal consciousness of doing their duty—of
securing the liberties of their country—more espe-
cially as after the establishment of the system
of voting by ballot, bribery, perjury, and the corrup-