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

There could be no greater error than to use legal terms, and
to apply them to different subjects than those to which they
properly belonged ; and Lord Mansfield was in the habit of
warning reasoners of that kind that nothing so much mis-
leads as analogy. If the elector was a trustee, for whom
was he trustee ? He supposed the answer would be, for the
non-electors. (Hear.) Trustee for the non-electors I That
was a very singular thing, for in law a man who was enti-
tled to the benefit of a trust had a beneficial trust, and if
you made the electors the trustees for the non-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 the 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 lerd, 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. gentleman 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 as 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, he 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 thatpublicity of voting cannot
be constitutional, because of two ancient statutes, one of
which declares that no one shall disturb by force 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 W3rvilr 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 to that 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 inamanner 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
jxdge 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 has an 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 he 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
one way or the other, anu 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 to get 220 votes only get 200, and the other side ob-
tain 220. What would be the state of things then under a
system of secret voting ? Tinder 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
texcel-
lent man, deserving of support, and that he intends a
give a plumper for him, and then go to the poll, and give k
vote against the very person of whom he was. thus
char spacter
ea -
ing. Ido not believe that the effect on English
will be so great as that. At the same time publicityceisrttahin
the
a
in
rule of English society. (Hear, hear.) There are
allured by
b
number of persons among electors who may be
being told by their landlords to vote a particularway_when
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 farms ;" but
I believe that in most cases the opinions of landlords and
tenants are the same, and therefore that they vote together.
No doubt there are hardships on voters, especially at every
general election, but comparing this with the advantages
derived from publicity, I cannot but see how much has been
gained for freedom by the system of men coming boldly for-
ward to support the principles they hold. (Hear, hear.) Men
in other times have been imprisoned, and suffered for their
principles in a way which is only to be compared to that
which some of the subjects of the King of Naples have
suffered. In later times men have eiposed themselves to
trials for high treason for avowing principles like those which
were prevalent at the French Revolution and other doc-
trines. But I believe that freedom depeuds'on that determi-
nation to do what men think right, which was sI Iwn ou those
trials, and in those declarations of independence of opinion.
No one promo, except invoting, 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 kind 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 pointedly referred to me, that
I am sure the house will permit me 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 whisk 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,
lEstuat 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 F 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-
raising 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 931 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 fraud 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 will 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 deGTaded 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 of which 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 civil
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
constitutiou. 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 en 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
arc just as liable to sustain personal inconvenience.
eA
member, for instance, who has spent a large sum f
sms othiari
on his canvass 'Would suffer far greater pecuniary, lo
which
a tradesman in a country town. Every principle,s a That
equally lead us to apply secret voting to elect'.
(liea.ri:mheeasaru.)re r ha t
equally to members of this house.
beingreextrtoegrntestseiohe would be a great misfortune. Instead of
The hnieeaspraroceeeodfingprsoogfrtehasi; ihtouisseounseedrtaothaergroefat
p secretnbe ofifr
el
ta ttehe years t
debatesh e ywer havee
madebe e n
pmnandrei e and at
hn
ednm
tohr
ee
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 ho will consent to bringing in the
bill that he may judge of its details and its machinery ; my
to
objections are not its details, but to its principle, and I
shall certainly back up the Government in their determina-
tion to oppose it. (Cheers.)
Mr. MILLS had listened with great satisfaction to the
speech of the noble lord, coming as it did from the leader of
party many of the members of which were in favour of the
amotion. He had also listened with very great satisfaction
to the speech of the noble lord the member for the City, for
having perused with great care the passage in his address
referring to secret voting, he felt considerable doubts as to
whether 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. (Hear, 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 election, %Igo were Aye Liberal candidates,