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

THE' ! SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY -"EVENING, APRIL .:- 13, 18 i 9

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 a-ratification 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 pit 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 whidh 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 followed 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 250 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 away
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-
ties ran a risk of being deceived; but the proposition of the
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. Varonet (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 to 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
1 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 losethat
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 H. 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 conzita) 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 mt. 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 ar'P oument ? 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 o 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 ? Me 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 perform 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 argumemt, which was not, however,
originally brought forward by the noble lord the member
for London, but by no less a person than Sir Robert Peel.

There could be no greater error than to us le legal terms, and '
to apply them to different subjects than th ose to which they
properly belonged ; and Lord Mansfield w us in the habit of
warning reasoners of that kind that nothing so much mis-
leads as analogy. If the elector was a t rustee, for whom
was he trustee ? He supposed the answer would be, for the
non-electors. (Hear.) Trustee for the no; 2 -electors ! That
was a very singular thing, for in law a mein. who was enti-
tled to the benefit of a trust had a beneficia I trust, and if
you made the electors the trustees for the n cm-electors, the
ridiculous consequence would follow that the right was in
the non-electors. (Hear.) Suppose that he (Sir R. Bethell)
in the year 1810, had been an elector, and one of the trus-
tees of the non-electors and among Vie whole crowd of
non-electors, his " cesiui que trust," there was a great
great cry of " No Popery," and he had. voted in favour of
Catholic Emancipation, would not that have been a breach
of trust, and would not the non-electors of 1810 have con-
sidered it a great breach of trust, and would he not probably
have had his head broken and been carried home on a shut-
ter ? (Laughter.) He would have had a right to say to the
noble lord, I meant to give a vote founded on an enlarged
consideration of what I believed to be for the benefit of the
country, and you would have me leave that alone, because
it is a breach of trust, for which the non-electors according
to your doctrine have a right to call me to account. (Hear,
hear.) Nothing could be so absurd as to say that he who
had exercised the franchise with a foresight and sagacity
greater than that of those for whom, according to the doc-
trine of the noble lord, he was a trustee, represented them
instead of an enlightened constituency. If he bad voted in
1810 for Catholic emancipation, he would probably have
been tarred and, feathered, and put into the commination
service—(laughter)—and yet the noble lord the member for
London, and the noble lord the member for Tiverton, de
dared the elective franchise was a trust, and for the due
exercise of which the non-electors had a right to call an
elector to account. There was a third argument, namely,
that the ballot was cowardly and un-English, and they had
heard the right hon. gentlemau the late Home Secretary
say that it was alien to and at variance with our institu-
tions. But what could degrade a man more than to place
him in such a condition as that he was the slave to the
opinions of another ? That was the case now. A right
hon. gentleman opposite had used a phrase which would live,
when he said that electors would go about with masks on
their faces. He (Sir R. Bethell) said that that was their
present condition, because you compelled tenants to put on
masks and to come to the hustings as men bearing messages,
and with commands laid upon them, and they went thither
cursing the necessity, but obliged to submit. Did anything
more degrade a man than making him into this species of
slave ? If he was relieved from that condition would it tend
to elevate the character of the elector, and to place him in a
situation of far greater self-respect than he now enjoyed,
because of the existence at present of a sort of feudal
tyranny ? that was a word which suggested the ground on
which all the opposition to the ballot was founded, for that
opposition had its origin in the existence of those old feudal
principles which still adhered to the English character, and
under the influence of which a man could not imagine that
his tenants could have any opinions different to his own. It
was remarked to him by a right hon. gentleman, who sat
with him in a committee on a subject on which they would
probably never have to deliberate again—the amendment of
the oaths to be taken by Jews—that the old feudal spirit
still clung to Englishmen without their being conscious of
it. As the imperfection of the law to rescue electors from
intimidation was confessed, be would urge the adoption of
this, the only effectual mode of affirming the exercise of a
great constitutional right. (Hear, hear.)

Lord J. RUSSELL said—My hon. and learned friend has
entered so deeply into the arguments which from time to
time have been brought forward on this subject that I can-
not leave his remarks altogether unnoticed. My hon. and
learned friend began by saying that publicity of voting cannot
be constitutional, because of two ancient statutes, one of
which declares that no one shall disturb byforce of arms elec-
tors from voting, and the other that they shall vote freely and
indifferently. That is no doubt the spirit of our law and our
constitution. But those who framed those ancient statutes,
though they would have created a system of secret voting.
yet they never did, but left it to the executive government to
the law in force against those who disturbed the electors
in the exercise of their right of voting. Nay, more; al-
though in 1780 and 1785 there was a considerable body of
the people, and some of the best men in the kingdom who
were great friends of Parliamentary Reform in this country,
among whom were Mr. Fox and Mr. Pitt, yet the only notice
which was taken of secret voting is to be found in Wyvill's
papers, and an opinion is stated strongly against it. It
was not until of late years that secret voting, which my hon.
and learned friend thinks is a part of our constitution, was
proposed, and I think now, as I thought then, that secret
voting is not a part of our constitution. The argument used
by my noble friend the member for Tiverton and myself is
somewhat different tothat which my hon. and learned friend
stated that we have used. It was the second point which he
noticed, viz., that publicity is the principle not only of our
constitution, but of all our free institutions. It may be de-
sirable to create an anomaly in our system, but we know
that all persons in this country charged with any duty have
to perform it in public ; they have to state what they have
done, and the reasons for their doing so. If a First Lord of
the Admiralty deals with his junior lords in amanner which
is thought to be exceptionable the matter is brought before
the house—(hear, hear)—a statement is made and an an-
swer is given, and the next morning the whole people of
the three kingdoms are able to judge who is in the right and
who is in the wrong, and whether what the First Lord of
the Admiralty has done is for the public welfare or injuri-
ous to it. (Hear, hear.) Will any one say that because the
First Lord of the Admiralty is a high officer of State he is
not to be questioned ? No man would be able to stand up
for five minutes for such a doctrine. So it is with the whole
of the Government. When the Cabinet has made up its
mind on a question it comes down to Parliament and states
what it intends to do, and the whole public is enabled to
judge whether they are right or wrong. So it is with the
whole administration of justice. Whether it be the Lord
Chancellor or the Lord Chief Justice, he states what is his
opinion of the law, and on every trial, whether a person is
accused of libel, or high treason, or any other offence, the
proceedings are public to the world, and every one knows
what are the arguments of the law officers of the Crown,
what is the decision of the judge on the law, and what is
the verdict of the jury ; and although these last do not state
the reasons for their verdict, every one has the assurance
that it is their unanimous opinion. So that the whole of
our system of government in its every part has publicity
as its inherent principle. lam not prepared to say that it
may not be necessary that there should not be public vot-
ing at elections, all I say is that it is contrary to our usual
practice, and to the usual mode of carrying on our affairs
of state and our administration of justice. But then comes
the question whether publicity is of use in giving votes on
the election of members of Parliament. When I speak of
the purity of public opinion, I do not think that it has ever
been thoroughly weighed and considered what will be the
effect of perfect secrecy in this respect. I agree that it is
wrong in landlords to exercise their influence on their
tenants, and in customers to exercise their influence on
tradesmen. But there are other influences which may be
at work, and whiCh certainly would be at work if you en-
sured complete secrecy in voting ; and I come now to the
question which my hon. and learned friend argued as to the
franchise being a trust. Ido not say that the trust of an
elector is in perfect analogy with that which the law creates
in a trustee, or that there is any body of persons which can
be compared to a " cestui que trust," but I say the commu-
nity at large haian interest in the way in which votes are
given in the election of members of Parliament and that
whether electors or non-electors they have an interest in
knowing how the votes are given which elect those persons
who are to dispose of the welfare of the state. I have
spoken of the influence exercised by landlords, and by cus-
tomers, but I remember that in 1831, speaking on this sub-
ject, I said we do not propose to deal with it in the Reform
Bill, but when the ballot comes to be considered, it will be
seen that while you prevent the exercise of bad Influences,
it will also be found that you interfere with good influences.
lam still of that opinion. It may happen that in a con-
stituency there are 20 votes which may decide an election
ono way or the other, one there may be a man who
has those votes at his command, who has spoken loudly
in favour of a candidate, and has been conspicuous
as an adherent on his side ; but before the elec-
tion takes place he may find that he can make so
good a bargain with the other side, which will result in ad-
vantage to himself and his friends, that he determines that
he and his 19 friends shall go over to the side on behalf of
, whom he has not spoken, and in favour of whom he has not
declared. When you come to the election, those who
ex-
pected.22stjo get 220
wvootmoy be tifeetsta2otoe,oafntdhtinhgesottenr side orba-
tain
system of secret voting ? Under a system of public voting,
you know who has voted against the side to which they had
professed to adhere, and if it appears that any advantage
has been gained by them in consequence, these men will be
held up to public reprobation. With regard to the modifi-
cation of my opinion on the subject of the ballot to which
the right hon. gentleman (Mr. S. Estcourt) referred, I can
only say that I have so far modified my opinions that I do
not think that, if secret voting was adopted, it would pro-
duce the serious consequences which I formerly believed it
would. (Hear.) I will explain, why I think so. I formerly
argued that it would tend to introduce so much deceit, so
much desire in men to deceive and to pretend to be what
they were not, that it would have an injurious effect on the
character of the English people. On further reflection, I do
not believe that it would have that injurious effect. (Hear.)
I believe the English character is such, and there is so much
warmth and eagerness about elections, that every man will
always allow his predilections to become so well known that
every one will know which way he votes. I cannot concur
in what was said by Mr. Sidney Smith in his pamphlet,
that in order to conceal his vote every man will go to the
wrong dinner, give the wrong toast, and sing the wrong
song. (Hear, hear.) Ido not believe that any man will go
through this process. I do not believe that a man on
going to the poll will talk of Sir Thomas being an excel-
lent man, deserving of support, and that he Wen& to
give a plumper for him, and then go to the poll, and give a
vote against the very person of whom he was thus speak-
ing. Ido not believe that the effect on English; character
will be so great as that. At the same time publicity is the
rule of English society. (Hear, hear.) There are a certain
number of persons among electors who may bp allured by
being told by their landlords to vote in a particular waysvhen
they do not wish to do so, and that is no doubt_ a great hard-
ship. I believe, however, that that hardship is much less
than it used to be, and that there does not exist now, as my
hon. and learned friend the member for Aylesbury says, a
sort of feudal supremacy, and that landlords say to tenants,
" Vote with me, or I will deprive you of your tarma but
I believe that in most cases the opinions of landlords and
tenants are the same, and therefore that theyvote
at Query
No doubt there are hardships on voters, especially
general election, but comparing this with the advantages
derived from publicity, I cannot but see how much has been
gainedfor freedom by the ayatern of men coming boldly for-
ward to support the prineiplea they holds
(par, lipart) Men
in otheetimes have been imprisoned, a
principles in a way which is only to be compared tocosiepate•ecidrtheir
that
which some of the subjects of the King of Naples have
suffered. In later times men have exposed themselves to
trials for high treason foravowing principles liko those which
were prevalent at the FrePth Revolution, and ()the- doc-
trines. But I believe that freedom depends on that determi-
nation to do what men think right, which was shown on those
trials, and in those declarations of independence of opinion.
No one proposes, except iu voting, any principle but of publi-

city in the conduct of our affairs ; but in that respect there is
this anomaly and this departure from the general principle
proposed. It will have no great effect, perhaps, but still I
believe it will to a little extent weaken that self-assertion
which is the main feature of the English character, Look
at France. In that country they have had the ballot, and
so far from its promoting freedom, it would seem that
secret voting has made the voters timid, and inclined to
follow any Government of the day? instead of each man's
asserting his opinions manfully, as is done in this country.
These are the views which induce me to oppose this motion.
If at any other time a motion of this bind is carried, I
do not believe that any great public injury will follow
from it, for I believe that in this country the declaration
of opinion is so much a habit, and our liberties are so well
established, that no mere mechanical contrivance can prove
injurious to them; but I never heard of any case in which
the ballot has done good, and I believe that the balance of

evil is against it. (hear, hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON—My hon. and learned friend the
member for Aylesbury has so pointedlyreferred to me, that
I am sure the house will permit mo to make a few remarks.
In one maxim laid down by my hon. and learned friend I

entirely concur, and his own speech is a remarkable illus-
tration of its truth. My learned friend said that there
can be no more fruitful source of error than to take legal
terms and misapply them- (Hear.) His whole speech was
an illustration of this maxim, for there never was a greater
tissue of fallacies than those uttered by my hon. and learned
friend. He began by quoting a statute which was intended
to apply to persons preventing by force • of arms electors
going freely to the poll, and he applied it as if it was a law
to prevent persons influencing voters. Why, it is quite
plain that that statute is applicable to a different state of
things to that to which the ballot is applicable. My hon.
and learned friend went into a long and ingenious argument
as to the meaning of the word " trust ;" and he was pleased
to say that my noble friend (Lord J. Russell) and myself
urged that the franchise was a trust held by electors for
non-electors ; and he proved that it was not a trust in the
Chancery sense of the word, and that my noble friend and I
knew nothing of the word we were using. I still venture
to submit, with deference to my hon. and learned friend,
that the word trust, and trustees, have a legal meaning
apart from that given to them by the Court of Chancery,
and that a person may hold a trust for the benefit of
the nation whioh does not come within the technical defini-
tion of my hon. and learned friend. (Hear, hear.) lam
entirely opposed to the speech and opinions of my hon. and
learned friend. (Cheers and laughter.) Now, Sir, I retain
all the opinions I ever expressed on the motion of my hon.
friend, the member for Bristol ; in fact, I am more against
his bill on the statement he has made this evening than
ever before on any former occosion. (Hear, hear.) As
far as one could understand the argument, before this the
measure of secret voting was not to be absolutelyimperative,
but we are now told it is to be a gagging bill, absolutely
compulsory, no man is to tell how he has voted, he must
-not say it to any other man, not even to his wife. (Hear,
hear) When he had voted he will be in the condition of
the man described by the Roman poet :
" Intus,
/Estuat infelix quod Proxima nexiat uxor."
If this bill passes everyman in England, Scotland, and Ire-
land will be prevented from stating how he has voted. I
quite agree with my noble friend the member for the City,
that this is a kind of tyranny the people of England will
never submit to. The British nation will never submit to
anything so unjust, so totally repugnant to the principles
and spirit of the British constitution. But how is it to be
enforced ? How can we compel secret voting ? There is no
use in a bill unless we impose some penalty. Does my hon.
friend propose to impose fine and imprisonment onany man
who tells how he votes ? Is it not perfectly ridiculous ? If
that is to be the case we can never have a man boasting of
his preference for one candidate or stating his objection to
another, but that is impossible. You can never get men to
be silent ; to say that a man should not tell his most inti-
mate friend, or even his wife—if this kind of secret voting
was to be made compulsory, it would be a tyranny the
people would not submit to. Why, it would make the elec-
tion like a Quakers' meeting. (Laughter.) There would
be no speeches, no canvassing, no meeting of friends—all
must be done in sober sadness, solemn silence. Is it not
ridiculous to suppose you can carry that into effect by any
act of Parliament ? It is perfectly absurd. (Hear.) It is
trifling with Parliament and the country to propose a law,
which, in its very nature, was most unjust and totally re-
pugnant to the feelings of the people. (Hear, hear.) We
are told, indeed, it will enable a man to vote as he likes. I
believe that in operation it would prove to be a most demo-
ralising law. Instead of an act for the purity of elections it
would be an act for the encouragement of fraud, falsehood,
and corruption. It would be an encouragement to fraud.
Make what machinery you wish it would be impossible to
find any not liable to fraud. Wherever vote by ballot
exists fraud is perpetrated. I believe in France and Ame-
rice, and we know that it is so in Australia. America used
to be the ground on which all champions of the ballot set
out their battle field, but that is now given up. In America
there is no secret voting ; it is not pretended that there is
Instead of secret voting, it is ticket voting. Men go up with
their tickets stuck in their hats, and the only reason why
their votes are taken by tickets, instead of verbally, is that,
as the electors have to vote for a number of officers at a
time, the ticket is found to be the most convenient mode. I
say raud will exist to a great extent. You cannot prevent
collusion and fraud, by which an undue number of votes
will be taken from one candidate and given to another. As
to falsehood, does any man pretend to tell them it will not
be a source of falsehood to a great extent. Let us assume
the case of the landlord or the master manufacturer wanting
to sway the votes of those holding under them or those em-
ployed by them, will those people be cheated by your veil ?
The landlord or employer will go and say, " The election is
coming, my candidate is a good man, I hope you will vote
for him." The tenant or workman ill say, " Things are
altered, we now vote by ballot, I cannot promise." The
reply will be, " But I beg you will, I know you are a man
of your word and that if you do promise, you will keep it."
The same coercion that now exists (I believe it is much less
than is alleged) will naturally be used for the purpose of
extorting a promise. The man may refuse, and he will be
subject to the same penalty as is now said to attach to a
vote against the will of a landlord or employer. If the
man gives the promise it leaves him more degraded—(hear,
hear)—if he makes a promise knowing he will not keep
it ; if he means to keep it he is equally degraded as if he
voted. (Hear, hear.) I say, therefore, this measure
would be demoralising in a greater degree than any
abuses which now exist ; and they, I believe, are diminish-
ing every day. (Hear hear.) But, sir, I say that secret
voting is at variance, I will not say with the spirit of the
British constitution, but with that practice on which our
liberties rely, and ofwhich publicity is an essential element.
(Hear.) Whenever political functions are exercised it is
essential to the working of our institutions that they should
be exercised subject to the responsibility which attaches to
them, and the opinion which the rest of the country may
hold. If we withdraw political functions from publicity,
we aim a fatal blow at the foundations of our liberties. It
is really a play upon words to say that electors do not hold
their votes in trust; if we were to have universal suffrage

in the fullest sense of the term, so that every man, woman
and child should have a vote, yet each of them would hold
their vote in trust, and the vote ought to be public that the
country might know how each of them performed their duty,
It was a law of one of the Greek republics that when a own
contest arose no man should be permitted to remain neutral.
The man is a traitor to his country who shrinks from mak-
ing manifest the line of conduct he would pursue. The
boldness and fearlessness with which men on great public
occasions express their views on political questions is a
part of the healthy spirit of the British constitution. Any
measure which would tend to withdraw political feelings
from their public expression, and which would make a man
go up like a coward sneaking to the box, hardly daring to
let it be seen which side his hand went, is a measure totally
inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the British
constitution, It is a mere delusion on the nation on the
part of those who stand up and say that such a measure
would secure the due working of our institutions. (Hear.)
As to bribery, no man can tell me that secret voting would
be a remedy against bribery. (Hear, hear.) Suppose an
election agent were to go to a candidate, and tell him the
chances were nearly balanced, that if certain men promised
to vote for him, he would be elected, but they would not
vote unless on certain conditions. If these conditions were
acted on and the candidate returned, would it not be
much more difficult to detect bribery with secret voting
than when every man's vote was known and the in-
fluences to which he was subjected ? I contend this
measure does not deserve the support and approval of
Parliament--(hear, hear)—and I was very glad to find a
few days since, when the, question was brought to a vote in
one of the largest houses on record, there was such an im-
mense majority against it. (Hear.) It is true my hon.
friend the member for Bristol and one or two others of its
most warm supporters withdrew, but to counterbalance
that, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the First Lord of
the Admiralty, and the noble lord-the member for King's
Lynn, who, of course, would have voted against it—(hear,
hear)—were also absent. If this measure is to be carried,
and if electors are to be screened from any possible incon-
venience as a consequence of their votes, on what possible
principle, on what possible analogy, will you refuse to ex-
tend the same protection to members of this house ? (Hear.)
We stand to the country in a similar position. (Hear.) We
are just as liable to sustain personal inconvenience. A
member, for instance, who has spent a large sum of money
on his canvass would suffer far greater pecuniary loss than
a tradesman in a country town. Every principle which
should lead us to apply secret voting to elections applies
equally to members of this house. (Hear, hear.) That
would be a great misfortune. Instead of this measure being
a measure of progress, it is one rather of retrogression.
The proceedings of this house used to a great extent to be
secret; of late years they have been made more and more
public—first the debates were made public, and then the
divisions. I recollect the time when there was no published
list of the division ; it was Mr. Horner who suggested that
it was of great importance the country should know them.
Now, indeed, the advocates of popular rights come and ask
us to re-establish the principle of secrecy. They
say,
in-
deed, that now if a tradesman votes against the wishes of his
chief customers, or if a tenant votes against his landlord, the
tradesman loses his custom, and the tenant loses his farm.
But what would be the consequence if this bill passed ? No
man would employ a tradesman whose political opinions
were not in accordance with his own ; and no man would
take a tenant who was not of the same way of thinking as
himself. The honourable member for Bristol referred to the
case of a tenant who was turned out, but whose landlord
advertised to recommend him to others; but the only way
he could get it was by having
another tenant turned out.
The only result of this bill would be
to substitute for one
mode of coercion another still more odious. In a country
town no gentleman would employ a tradesman unless he
knew him, and in the same way when a tenant wished to
take a farm, the landlord would ask him whether he was a
Whig or a Tory. We should have a most odious inquisition
between tradesmen and their customers, between landlords
and their tenants, To enforce this measure would require
a tribunal totally inconsistent with the fundamental prin-
ciples of the British constitution. The hon, member for
Westminster hrs said he will consent to bringing in the
bill that he may judge of its details and its machinery; my
objections are Uot to its details, but to its principle, and I
shall certainly back up the Government in their determina-
tion to oppose it. (Cheers,)
Mr. DRILLS bad listened with great satisfaction to the
speech of the noble lord, coming as it did from the leader of
a party many of the members of which were in favour of the
motion. He had-also-listened with very great satisfaction
to the speech of the Wale lord the member for the City, for
having perused with greatcare the passage in his address
efe rrin to secret voting, he felt considerable doubts as to
rwhether the noble lord might not then, or at some future
period, be found a supporter of the ballot. The speech,
however, of the noble lord had left no doubt on the subject.
This question had now been before the house twenty-four
years, and had been discussed sixteen times; it was there-
fore one less for debate than for division. ;'(Leas., hear.) It
was said this would be a complete corrupt practices preven-
tion act, lie would refer the house to what took place a
Reigate last electiou. There Were Ave Liberal eaudidates,

and a sort of preliminary ballot to select one. The late
member for Lambeth, Mr, Wilkinson, an ardent supporter
of the ballot, was one of the rejected, and he published an
address declaring that the most unjust and wicked agencies
had been used to tamper with the result. That showed
what they might expect. He believed the proposition was
a most plausible political imposture. (Hear.)
Mr. CONINGHAM could not allow the observation of
the noble lord with regard to the late division to pass unno-
ticed. He and other supporters of the ballot had retired from
the division because the question immediately before the
house was the resolution of the noble lord the member for the
City, and they did not wish to encumber it with the ballot.
He believed the ballot suffered from being brought forward
as an isolated question ; it ought to be part of a great mea-
sure of reform. It appeared the Government intended to give
a strict negative to the question. The right hon. gentleman
the Chancellor of the Exchequer held very different views,
when in his address to the electors of Marylebone he ex-
pressed his conviction that it was necessary to complete the
machinery of the constitution by two measure; triennial
Parliaments and vote by ballot. How could the right hon.
gentleman reconcile those sentiments with the negative vote
he was about to give ?
Mr. BERKELEY, in reply, said he felt very much edified
by the speeches of their two leaders on that side of the house.
(Laughter.) For some time back they had looked in vain
for any such unanimity, but now their leaders sat on a box,
like the two Kings of Br entford, smelling at the same rose—
(laughter)—although they disagreed on a most vital and
important point with those who constituted their party.
(Hear, hear.) It was impossible to answer the audacious
and flagrant speech of the noble lord. More audacious and
flagrant rubbish he had" never heard—(laughter)—nor de-
livered in a more jaunty mariner. (Laughter.) The noble lord
had attributed things to him he never said about fines and
imprisonment, and electors' wives. What he did say applied
to the noble lord aswell as anybody else ; he did not suppose
the noble lord told everything he did to his wife. (A laugh.)
The noble lord the member for the City had, as usual, got
hold of the idea of a trust. If the electoral franchise were a
trust they knew the condition that the elector should exer-
cise free and unfettered, according to his conscience. (Hear,
hear.) The noble lord had forgotten that this measure had
passed the House of Commons in 1710, but was rejected in
the Lords. He despaired of seeing hon. gentlemen on that
side acting and holding together as a party until there was
some unanimity amongst their leaders. (Hear.) The noble
lord had referred to his absence from the recent division.
The noble lord forgot that 140 members had abstained from
voting. He would not attempt to answer the noble lord,
who had gone off in his usual slight and jaunty manner,
and having gained the cheers of hon. members on the other
side of the house who were opposed to the bill sat down a
perfect hero in his own estimation. (Laughter.)
The house then divided—
For the motion
Against it lO2
Majority against —3
The announcement was hailed with loud cheers from the
Opposition side of the house.
MANNING OF THE NAVY.
Sir C. NAPIER said, in the present state of the house
(there were not more than about 20 members present when
the gallant admiral rose) he should not, as he had intended
to do, bring the report of the Manning of the Navy Com-
mission before the house, but he would recommend the
First Lord of the Admiralty to do all he could to make
known to sailors what were his intentions relative to the
manning of the navy.
VEXATIOUS INDICTMENTS FOR MISDE-
MEANOUR.
On the motion of Mr. MELLOR a bill for preventing vexa-
tious indictments in certain cases of misdemeanour was
brought in and read a first time.

---
The house adjourned at ten minutes to ten o'clock.