The Sun.
London, England, 1861-04-24 00:00:00

the rogues from each other. Only as rogues, in
this matter, could hardly exist, if Rogue No. 11.
could not be supervised by Rogue No. 1., the advan-
tage of Rogue No. 11., voting as he pleases, is,
that both would turn honest because roguery was
übeless. It would be humble virtue we confess ; the
virtue of the late ROBERT OWEN'S theory—the
creature of " circumstances." Still humble virtue
would be better than flagrant vice. We need
hardly add that what Mr. BERKELEY has devoted
his life to, is preventing Rogue No. I. from bribing
or intimidating as he pleases, and that what his
opponent of the Press devotes its columns of banter
to, is, enabling Rogue No. I. to enjoy "oversight"
of his neighbour's vote; to "control" it, and
to make him "fear the consequences" of
voting as he pleases. For, when our con-
temporary represents Mr. BERKELEY as seek-
ing freedom for rogues to " vote without public
oversight, public control, or fear of consequences,"
there can be no doubt that the Times, by a mis-
print similar to that of the other day, reversed its
meaning—it should have been "private oversight,"
and "private control" the control and over-
sight being always that of those who have bought
the vote in a borough and commanded it in a
county ; and the consequences feared being losing
a bribe at the next election, or losing a farm at
the expiration of the next lease. The " oversight
and control" requisite to work this system is of
course chiefly private.
Debate there was none this time. The mover
and seconder spoke, and the house divided. It
ought not to have been let off so easily. It might
have had the adjourned debate on the Budget as
well as not, for they left work at eight o'clock,
though this was probably arranged by the Govern-
ment and the Opposition' whips to evade a
motion on the Admiralty equally distasteful to
official men and those who might become so before
the year was out. Mr. BERKELEY had, of course, no
more idea than we had, of his carrying his motion;
even leave to introduce a Bill, when it was one for
undeniable Reform, is too much. On other Bills
a controversy may be raised, even Liberals
might doubt, as we • do, the advantage
of extending the suffrage without extending
electoral protection to the new voters as well as
to the old ones; but, that independent voting would
be a clear and permanent reform no man in his senses
doubts, least of all do those doubt it who vote against
it, and hence it is forbidden even to appear and
explain itself to the house. Much more than half
the sages of St. Stephen's could, we believe, give
no consistent account of how the ballot is to be
conducted. This, however, they know—that it is
intended to make bribery and coercion useless ; that
is enough. They know how they got where they
are, and they are wiser than to knock down the
ladder by which they climbed into the House of
Commons.
The "Bribery and Corrupt Practices Protection
Act" is now to be renewed. It is to be a little
altered on the report of the committee which sat
upon it. That committee had some very pertinent
evidence from persons of unquestionable experience
in regard to the Ballot ; yet not a single word would
they say on it in the Report, and they had even the
un-English unfairness to exclude from the com-
mittee the recognised leader on the question ! How
deep must be their fear of knowledge on so im-
portant a subject !--indeed, nothing can surpass the
cowardice of the House in regard to the Ballot.
279 of the members confess, by their votes, their
fear for themselves personally—they confess such
fear as leads them to refuse even to look at the
dreadful Bill; and when they appointed a committee
on electoral practices, they first refused to put Mr.
BERKELEY on it, next refused to hear evidence
proffered them on behalf of the Ballot, and, lastly,
even to report on the evidence which found its way
into the blue-book against their will !
Lest our readers should overlook it, we quote the
part of Mr. BERKELEY'S speech which gives a very
brief summary of that evidence :
" The way in which the committee had flirted with the
question of the ballot was remarkable. Evidence had
been adduced before them, but had not been reported
upon, on which they could not turn their back. Mr. James
Vaughan, Chief Commissioner of the Gloucester and Ber-
wick inquiries, stated, when examined before the select
committee in regard to secret voting, that he did not
think any man would have been disposed to give a bribe
without knowing how the recipient was to vote. Mr.
Welford, another of the Gloceater Commissioners, also said
that in no case had a voter who was bribed been trusted with
the money before he voted ; and that persons had been sent
to watch how bribed electors voted. In reply to another

question the same witness said he thought that persons at
Glocester would not have advanced their money to a largo
number of electors unless they had been sure of having their
votes for it; and he added that voters were suspicious as
well as the canvassers, and would not vote till the bribes
they were to receive were made safe. Mr. Sergeant
Pigott, Chief Commissioner at the Wakefield bribery in-
quiry, gave it as his opinion that the ballot would have

prevented a species of undue influence in that borough.
Again, Mr. E. James, as a witness, assured the committee
that the ballot would not prevent bribery in small consti-
tuencies, but he thought it would be an effectual prevent',
tive of intimidation. Mr. Phinn, who had been one of the
commissioners upon the St. Alban's inquiry, and who had a
large Parliamentary practice, was of opinion that the ballot
would be the best preventive of bribery, and the late Mr.
Coppock had expressed to him a similar opinion. Mr. Rose,
the agent of the Carlton Club, had no confidence in the
ballot, but he admitted that the Corrupt Practices Preven-
tion Act had become almost a nullity. Mr. Childers, for-
merly a member of the Australian Legislature and now a
member of the House of Commons, gave his experience of
the working of the ballot in Australia, which he said ren-
dered voting substantially secret. In one constituency
notoriously corrupt the introduction of the ballot had
effected a complete change, bribery and treating becoming
almost extinct. That witness added that the ballot system
of voting had given universal satisfaction in the colony. Mr.

Philpot, of Glocester, was of opinion that the Australian
system of ballot would be the most effectual mode of remedy-
ing existing evils in this country arising from bribery and
intimidation. Sir F. Slade, a Parliamentary counsel, doubted
the efficacy of the ballot; but Captain Clark, R.E., formerly
a member of the Australian Legislature, confirmed the evi-
dence of Mr. Childers as to its operation in that colony.
Mr. W. Wise, of Norwich, election 'agent, did not ap-

prove the ballot, but recommended a system of privite

voting. That witness remarked that tenants upon large
estates did not desire the ballot, as they liked their land-

lords to know how they voted. It did not seem to have

occurred to any member of the committee to ask whether

the tenants would like their landlords to know how they
voted when they went against the landlord's candidate.

Such was the evidence given before the committee upon
the subject of the ballot, but why the ballot formed no por-
tion of the report was not for him to explain."
No explanation was needed; every one of Mr.
BERKELEY'S hearers was able to give it—'Tis "the
Ballot that makes cowards of us all."

We read, as written with friendly intentions, a
short article which we published yesterday, from
the ltiontieur, in relation to Poland. The sym-
pathy of France with that unhappy country is
traditional, and the NAPOLE9NS, with their founder,
all acknowledge that not reconstituting the king-
dom of Poland was a grave mistake. Poles have
lived much in Paris, and the name of WALEWSKI
denotes its origin. The late events at *Warsaw,
therefore, could but deeply interest the Parisian
public, as well as our own. Indeed our chief, inte-
rest, is that of our indignant hatred of despotism and
oppression ; France unites to some measure of this
a personal feeling towards a large number of Poles
who have served in her armies, and made that
country their home. Hence the Parisian press must
reflect so general a feeling. "But,"says the Moniteio
" these expressions of interest would ill serve
the Polish cause if they had the effect of mis-
leading public opinion by allowing it to be sup-
posed that the Emperor of the French encourages
hopes which he could not satisfy. The generous
ideas displayed by the Emperor Alexander