The Sun.
London, England, 1859-04-13 00:00:00

Launceston, had written a letter stating that his attention
had been called to the passage in the speech of Mr. Marsh,
which he declared to be altogether unfounded. The latter
gentleman stated that under the system of secret voting,
now generally adopted throughout the colony, the best men
were usually elected, and the people everywhere spoke with
intense gratification of its working, asserting that no sys-
tem of voting was as satisfactory as the ballot. (Hear,
hear.) These statements, he submitted, were conclusive
in answer to the argument of want of success of the ballot
in Australia. (Hear, hear.) Then, again, they had heard
a great deal about the failure of the ballot in America.
Let it be understood that the advocates of the ballot here

had never put forward the American system as one which
had their approbrtion. That system, though it was pos-
sible for a man to conceal his vote under it, was in reality

one of open voting; and what he (Mr. Berkeley) and those
who acted with him contended was, that no system would
be satisfactory in this country which was not entirely
secret. In America, in all those states where originally open
voting was practised, they had come one by one to adopt
the ballot, and now there were only two states which ad-
hered to open voting—viz., the slave states of Kentucky
and Virginia, where at every election the most disgraceful
scenes took place. The fact was that the ballot-box was
the only security in America for those who advocated the
abolition of slavery, while open voting was insisted upon
by its advocates in order to intimidate those who were op-
posed to them. He had no expectation that any argument
would have weight with the house, which was too hardened
in its course for any influence to have effect upon it except
the influence from out of doors. That influence, however,

would be brought to bear upon them, and before long the
people would demand, in a voice of thunder and as a right,
that which they now solicited as a boon. It might be com-
plained that now, at the end of a Parliament, such a motion
as he was submitting could have no particular effect, but it
was precisely because they were approaching that grand
national saturnalia which took place at every general elec-
tion, that he brought forward this motion and these state-
ments. (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. V. SHELLEY, in seconding the motion, com-
plained of the course taken by Mr.Wyld in bringing forward
this subject of the ballot on the night of the division on

the Government Reform Bill, which he considered unfair to

the hon. member for Bristol, and had therefore follo wed that
hon. member out of the house to avoid voting. He was

glad to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on a late oc-
casion, while recommending the adoption of voting papers,

say that all parties were agreed that some means must be
devised for doing away with the corrupt practices that took
place at elections, and he hoped that as the object of this
bill was to prevent such practices no objection would be
offered to its being brought in and laid before the house and
the country. In the rural districts, in which he passed the

greater part of his life, he could assure the house that inti-
midation on the part of the landowners was a rife as ever.
He believed that if secret voting were established, and every
man could vote according to his conscience without fear of

the consequences, the best man would invariably be re-
turned. As showing the extent to which the interference
of landlords was carried, he referred to an advertisement in
a country paper from a farmer for a farm of 2,50 acres, the

ground of his requiring it being that he had received a letter
from his landlord, a clergyman of Agar, in Essex, one passage
in which was—" I hope in a few days to fix the time for
coming to Maidstone to receive the rent. I hope you are a
Conservative, as I am, and that you will give your vote for
Sir W. Riddell. It is my opinion that landlord and tenant
should always vote on the same side, and if we proceed to
arrange for a new lease of the farm that will be a stipula-
tion." (Hear.) Now, he (Sir J. Shelley) could scarcely
suppose that any man would contend that such a demand on
the part of a landlord was justifiable, or that any landlord had
a right to call upon his tenant to pay a second rent, in the
shape of a vote. All that was now asked was leave to intro-
duce the bill, that it might be printed and laid before the
public. (Divide, divide.) They had now for the first time a
practical proposition presented to the house for doing awa3-
with corrupt practices at elections, and he could scarcely sup-
pose that any one would oppose its being introduced, so that
its provisions might be seen and understood, and that the
house and the country might judge how far the machinery
proposed would be effectual for the purpose. With regard to
bribery, perhaps the most effectual remedy was the widening
of the constituencies, for it was obvious that it could not be
so effectually perpetuated in large constituencies as in small
ones. Upon the subject of voting papers, the noble lord
(Stanley) two years ago, when the noble lord the member
for Stamford (Lord R. Cecil) brought in a bill for taking
votes by that system, said—" Inreference to this question of
voting papers proposed by the noble lord, I think the evil
will be increased in a greater degree. At present both par-
tie; ran a risk of being deceived ; but the proposition of th•
noble lord would make them quite safe. The voter would
receive his voting paper from the agent, together with a £5
note ; the note would be left, and the voting paper would be
taken away signed." Now, under a system of secret voting
no man would be such a fool as to lay down the £5 note, for
he would have no security for the vote ; and as between
landlord and tenant, master and servant, and customer and
tradesman, it would render improper influence impossible.

Mr. Secretary ESTCOURT could not suppose that the
hon. gentlemen who had moved and seconded the motion
anticipated much discussion on it at this period of the ses-
sion and of the Parliament. He should rather suppose that
the two speeches they had heard were speeches that were
intended to be spoken on the motion of the hon. member for
Bodmin when many of the friends of the Ballot refused to
enter into the discussion. But it appeared to him that the
arguments of the hon. gentlemen were addressed not so
much to the house generally as to two distinguished mem-
bers of it with whom, perhaps, he thought they would have
some weight—he alluded to the noble lord the member for
London and the right hon. baronet the member for Car-
lisle. The noble lord and the right hon. baronet were, he
believed, the last two instances of individuals who had given
their constituents reason to suppose that they were not quite
so insensible to the arguments of the hon. member for Bristol
as they had been in times past. (Ministerial cheers.) He
thought he was justified in saying that the noble lord (Lord
J. Russell) had intimated recently that something might
possibly be gained by a further consideration of the subject
of the Ballot ; and the right hon. baronet (Sir J. Graham)
had referred to the question in such a manner as made it by
no means surprising that the hon. gentleman should address
his arguments to him. He could, besides, well understand
the object of bringing the subject forward at the present
moment. We were on the eve of a general election, and it was
no doubt convenient for the hon. gentleman to avail himself
of the means of making a fresh declaration in favour of a
measure which he was aware was looked upon favourably
by many people out of doors. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr.
Estcourt) would, however, be abandoning his duty if he did
not rise tc say that the Government were no parties to such
a motion. They held the same opinion they had always ex-
pressed on the subject, and on the present occasion, as it had
been a year ago, it would be his duty on the part of the Go-
vernment to say that their intention was to meet the motion
with a direct negative. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member
for Westminster asked the house to allow the bill to be
brought in in order that its provisions might be seen and
understood. But the ordinary course was for a member
proposing to introduce a bill to make the house acquainted
with its provisions in the speech in which he made the mo-
tion for bringing it in. (Hear, hear.) He confessed he
should have been glad to learn from the hon. member for
Bristol what the nature of the ballot was, and how he pro-
posed to put it in operation. The hon..member had spoken
of an appeal from the decision at the hustings in a manner
wholly inconsistent with his (Mr. Estcourt's) notions of
vote by ballot, as if after a man had given his vote in that
way it would be possible to ascertain for whom he had voted.
But if by any means or before any tribunal that could be
accomplished, he did not see how the hon. gentleman's
system of the ballot differed very much from open voting.
(Hear, hear.) It had been said by the opponents of the bal-
lot that they could not by secret voting prevent personation
and fraud, and he would ask thehouse to consider whether
supposing they could obtain what the hon. gentleman be-
lieved they could obtain—secret voting—they would not
lose more than they gained ? He would bring under the no-
tice of the house two points as to what they would lose.
They would lose mutual confidence, and they would lose that
which, in the matter of voting for members of Parliament,
ought to have greater weight with every man, the influence
of experience and character. These two points of loss would
he submitted, more than counterbalance any gain that could
possibly arise from secret voting, even if it could be arrived
at under any system. (Hear, hear.) The only instance in
which he knew of vote by ballot being practised in this
country was in the clubs. And why did it occur there ?
Because the objection to the candidate then turned on a
question of personal aversion, which had nothing to do with
his qualifications. It was quite different in voting for
members of Parliament, where qualification was everything.
Entertaining as he did the same opinion as formerly on this
subject, he should oppose the motion.
Sir R. BETHELL said that during the last years he had
given a silent vote on this question, and had never ven-
tured to address the house ; nor should he have ventured to
do so now but for statements which had been made by many
gentlemen to their constituents, which, as he conceived, con-
tained great errors and great fallacies. He apprehended that
there could not be greater errors or greater fallacies than
those which were brought forward on this question by his
noble friend the member for London, and his noble friend
the member for Tiverton. One of those fallacies was that it
was contrary to the constitution of this country that there
should be secret voting for members of Parliament, and that
it was according to constitutional law that such voting
should be open. He had been desirous of learning what was
the authority for that proposition. He knew but two autho-
rities on the subject of voting at elections, and they were the
declarations of two ancient acts of Parliament. The first
was a provision in the statute Edward 111. c. 5, which de-
clared "that because elections should be free the king com-
mands that no man by force of arms, or malice, or
menace, shall disturb any man in voting." The other was
to be found in a statute of Henry IV., which declared
"that the electors in full county (in plena comita) shall
proceed to elections freely and indifferently." The obliga-
tions and the rights of electors were defined in these words;
the right was that they should be allowed to give their votes
freely, the obligation was that they should give them indif-
ferently. That was all that the law defined on the subject.
Abundance of legislation had taken place in order to throw
on the elector the obligation by means of which he was to
obtain that freedom, but it was inadequate to obtain for the
exercise of his right freely,what was declared bylaw to belong
to him. If, then, the law was insufficient by direct enactment
to obtain the exercise of all the obligations ofthe electors, it was
incumbent on Parliament to consider whether there was not
a mode of voting by which the exercise of those obligations
could be carried into effect. That was a principle which had
never been carried out, and Parliament was called on to
carry out the principle of perfect freedom of election. What
became, then, of the constitutional argument ? His noble
friend the °
member for London, and his noble friend the
member for Tiverton, had often told them that the consti-
tution was opposed to secret voting. He could meet that
argument by a direct negative. The constitution required
perfect freedom of election, and no positive enactment had
secured that, and therefore the question was, what ought
to be done to secure it ? He then came to another unstable
argument, for he heard it stated again and again, that the
elective franchise was a trust, and that the party on whom
the trust was imposed had a public duty to per-Terra in the
exercise of that trust, and that those who were interested
in the trust had a right to know how it was exercised. That
was substantially the argument, which was not, however,
originally brought forward by the noble lord the member
for London, but by no less a person thew Six Robert reel,