The Sun.
London, England, 1857-04-02 00:00:00

in their Etronglials, that is to say, among the
county constituencies. As, for example—Mr.
PULLER'S return for Hertfordshire, and Mr.
GURDON'S for West Norfolk, and Mr. DENISON'S
for North Northamptonshire.
It rests entirely, however, with the Noble Lord
at the head of her MAJESTY'S Government, whe-
ther his good fortune in thus winning over so con-
siderable a majority of Liberals to his side will
be to his own advantage or to his own destruc-
tion. His " measures " will decide his " men "
whether they will or will not support his Go-
vernment. His " men "—the men thus flocking
together under his popular standard—will, on the
other hand, decide the character of the "mea-
sures" ultimately destined to triumph in the
Councils of the new Parliament. Upon the
Prime Minister himself devolves the responsibility
of declaring whether MLNISTERIALISTS shall really
and truly, after all, mean PALMERSTONIANS.
Accordingly- as the Noble Viscount shall pro-
nounce for or against Liberalism—so inevitably,
and at once, will follow the interpretation. If
For, then the names will be synonymous. If
_Against, then Ministerialists ipso facto will signify
others than Palmerstonians. The game is at this
moment in the hands of the First Lord of the
Treasury. The ball is at his foot. He has had the
deal—he has very nearly dealt—What will be
his Trump Card ? Happier than the mere Whist-
player—the choice of that card at such moments
rests with the Administrator himself, instead of
being dependent simply and solely upon the Chap-
ter of Accidents. The Political Deal of 654
nominally of 658—is now rapidly drawing to a
close. The country is in the very agony of ex-
pectation. What will be the Trump Card ? Will
there be any trump at ail, or will it be a misdeal,
requiring a fresh shuffle of the cards and a change
of partners ? Or will the trump card be—as the
nation wishes it to be—Reform ? All this rests
at the present moment entirely at the option of
Viscount PALMERSTON.

The most hopeful sign for the Ballot is, that its
more distinguished Parliamentary opponents now
argue the subject with the electors. Till very
lately it was sufficient for a Whig or Conservative
candidate to meet a question on the Ballot with a
simple and a contemptuous "No." The hustings
at this election have told a better tale. Mr.
DISRAELI, for example, gave to the electors of
Bucks his reasons why they could not be trusted
to vote in freedom from external influence ; and,
but a few days ago, we saw how " RUSSELL
Brothers" deemed it prudent to soften down the
rather positive expressions of the head of the firm.
We fei 1 great pleasure in meeting such a worthy
antagonist as Mr. DISRAELI. One would think
that, if the best he could say against the Ballot
may be fairly met, we have not much more to ac-
complish. In the first place, to do him justice,
he abandons all the cant about its being un-Eng-
lish, and argues fairly from its consequences—
such consequences, at least, as he thinks must
follow from it. The power to vote is, he says, a
privilege, and, therefore, like all other privileges,
should be enjoyed in public. He denies that
it is a right or trust. Next, the concession of the
Ballot necessarily implies the concession of a very
extended suffrage, say Household Suffrage, and
this would require that the man of 50,000/. per
annum should have a thousand votes, and his
groom but one. Lastly, the ballot in France
gave a Parliament of undistinguished men, of men
whom the nation did not care to sustain, and it
would do the same here. This, we believe, the
great Conservative Leader of the Lower House
would acknowledge to be the essential points of his
argument.

In regard to the first point, we should say, that
a vote is the "right" of all subjects and tax-payers;
and, that if a privilege to those who now enjoy
it, the reason is, that they are the select seventh
of the adult population who have as yet gained
their right. We must, however, profess ourselves
to be too obtuse to discern the necessary connec-
tion between the possession of a privilege and
publicity in the use of it. The great value of

the privilege may be in its secret exercise. The
simple truth is that civil privileges should be used
for the advantage of the State, and is it
for the advantage of the State that the power of
voting should be controlled by the inspection of
those to whom it is now open. Mr. DISRAELI
will not deny that it is from above, not from
below, that influence is now brought to bear on
voters. The aristocracy, not the non-electors,
control the middle-class voters. Is it fair that the
aristocracy should have the House of Lords all
their own, and by their control over yeomen and
and tradesmen, and all below them, have a House
of Commons all their own also? We can see no
privilege, indeed, in the power of voting under the
eye of landlords, employers, mortgagees, (47,-c., it
is slavery rather than privilege ; and better by
far give all the votis to the men who cm coerce
or bribe the electors.

Mr. DISRAELI'S second argument, that under
an extended suffrage the rich must have votes in
proportion to their riches, was answered by the
audience. "Is not the man who earns but 501.
a year a man, as well as ho who inherits
50,0001. a year?" We freely concede that we
have always, with all Reformers, coupled the ex-
tension of the Suffrage with the Ballot. The rea-
sons are too obvious to need repetition now. But
we wish to extend it to men ; to men be-
cause they are citizens, and who ought therefore
to give their consent to the laws by which
they are governed, and the taxes necessary
to uphold the Government. What need has the
rich man of more votes than the poor man ? lle
has a defence in his money ; and, if anything,
needs, less than the other does, the protection of
a vote. Is it not as important to the poor man to
protect his little all by law as fur the rich
man to protect his wealth ? Has not the poor
man as good a claim to vote on the taxes which
affect his necessaries or his few comforts as the
rich man to vote on the taxes which touch his
luxuries ? "But do you mean," exclaims Mr.
DISRAELI, " that property is to have no influence
on the election of Members of Parliament ?" We
reply, let it have its natural influence, but not
the influence which must always attach to pro-
perty when used as it ought to be, and also the
influence which belongs
to all the persons who
have little or no property. Besides, the incomes
of the many who cannot be deemed men of pro-
perty may, on the whole,
equal those of the few
who are held to be so ; and why, therefore,
should not the collective
property and their num-
bers together, entitle them to independence of the
rich few ? Let property fulfil its duties, and it
will have its rights even under Universal Suffrage
and the Ballot.

But France—what are we to say to France ?
Why, that the Ballot, as is now generally cola_
fessed, brought out the mind of France. Yes, but
rejoins Mr. DISRAELI, it sent to Paris a Parlia-
ment of incapables, and so would the Ballot de
here. But what a number of assumptions are in-
cluded in these sentences. Unfortunately there
were but few men, if any, in France at the time
who could long " exercise much influence on pub-
lic opinion." It is not denied that France sent
to her Parliament as good men as she had ;