The Sun.
London, England, 1859-01-10 00:00:00

concede. He is therefore anxious to, wash his
hands of the entire affair, and let the Pontiff
settle matters with his own subjects: in the best
manner practicable.
But there is a pressing difficully in the case.
If French soldiers have held the Eternal City—if
allegiance to the Triple Crown has o nip been main-
tained by the ominous appearance of Gallic -bayo-
nets, so have the Legations been occupied. by
Austrians, and every demonstration therein. effec-
tually restrained. If Rome be evacuated by the
French, the Austrians would speedily take their
places. The sound of their approaching kettle-
drums would closely follow the departing echoes
of the French military music. This is not what
Louis NAPOLEON wants or wisher;. It would not by
any means suit his book. If he 'leaves the Pontifieal
he will not allow any to remaiia behindhim, hdoimm
,ineiniothes; in the city or co'antry. But Austria
not move ; she is too well, aware of the peculiarly
delicate state of the Lombardo-Venetian kingdom.
If a storm were excited in the Papal Sty ,tes,
tranquillity could scarcely be maintained in the
Austrian territories ; nor would Naples rema in at
peace. Sardinia is beginning to retrieve, her
'former position, and to become the regenera4zor of
a happy and united Italy.
Louis NAPOLEON has not acted discreetly, biAt
most certainly it is full time that the occupation
should cease. England most certainly will not
interfere to maintain the reign of violence and
despotism either in Italy or elsewhere. She, is
happily out of the scrape, and should not
suffer herself to be implicated under any
possible circumstances. If ever a country
required reform it is Italy, and if the unex-
pected movement of Louis NAPOLEON should pave
the way thereto, many will rejoice, although they
may feel convinced that it will not be ascribable to
any good or kindly feeling towards the patriot
. party on the part of the French EMPEROR.

Are we to number the Westminster Review
amongst the opponents of the Ballot ? It would
seem so. In the number for January, this year, is
an article, intended, apparently, to moderate the
zeal of the Radicals ; the pages which once were
adorned with the philosophical and historical dis-
quisitions of Mr. GROTE are now employed, and
that without the appended initials, in dissuading
us from demanding the Ballot ! Of course the
Tory section of the Cabinet and of the Whigs will
rejoice. They care little about other points de-
manded by Reformers, but the Ballot and the
equitable redistribution of members are their dread.
The latter point our quarterly contemporary insists
on as it deserves ; but on the former it is worse
than unsatisfactory, it is hostile ! It aims to super-
sede the Ballot by somewhat Radical proposals to
be sure ; but still to supersede it, and *e feel pretty
confident to supersede it by making the franchise
to thousands but a mockery, a delusion, and a

snare.

The proposal is to do away with the " desire for
the Ballot," by rendering it unnecessary. If the
small constituencies are abolished, and the tenant-
farmers in counties overwhelmed by the new voters
created by Mr. LOCKE KING'S Bill, then it will be
useless for customers to attempt intimidation of
shopkeepers, and for landlords to interfere with
tenants. We do not, however, believe that large
constituencies are free from the vice of intimida-
tion. Few might be disposed to bribe individual
electors when the constituencies amounted to ten
or twenty thousand, although it has been found
useful, even in such cases, to employ extensively
the services of public-houses ; still there is in
large boroughs a great deal of that unfair
influence which makes persons wish they had
not votes at all, rather than feel constrained to give
them contrary to their wish, to disoblige by abstain-
ing from voting, or, as the rarer case, to sacrifice
some social or pecuniary advantage by voting as
they believe to be right. The most obviously mis-
chievous use of power in large borough consti-
tuencies is that of employers over labourers. Man-
chester is a case in point. It has more than 18,000
electors ; yet, at the election when Mr. BRIGHT
was rejected, it is notorious that millowners con-
veyed their workmen and clerks in omnibuses to
the polling booth, and compelled them to vote
against their favourite candidate. Even if the re-
sult of elections were not affected in large consti -
tuencies by such malpractices, yet they ought to be
repressed, and, if possible, prevented. But they do
affect the result. We have little doubt, for instance,
that with the ballot Mr. BRIGHT would have kept

his seat.
The Westminster, however, argues that " when
men, by reason of their social position, dare not act
a bold and simple part, they may claim either to be
relieved from a duty to which they are unequal, or
to be shielded from enmity by some change of cir-
cumstance." It sees, however, no feasible changes
but disfranchisement or enlarging the constituen-
cies. The latter we have shown to be insufficient ;
the former alternative who could venture on ? If
tenant-farmers and first-class artizans cannot, even
in large constituencies, vote with independence,
who would dare, at this time of day, to strike them
off the [register ? But, says the reviewer, to
authorise them to vote in secret would not be a sure
safeguard to them, and, would foster the habit of
secrecy and evasion. The writer forgets that there
are other habits at least equally, objectionable.
Tyranny, and the unfair use of pecuniary or other
power over a neighbour, are surely far worse evils
than the others. Secrecy and evasion are but
defences ; coercion of voters is a crime. The evils,
therefore, consequent on the Ballot, are obviously
inferior to the crimes perpetrated through open
voting. Equity, therefore, demands that the criminal
should find himself obstructed by the police of the
ballot-box, not that the honest voter should be
obliged to resort to subterfuge to evade the political
garotter.

But our reviewer adds, " freedom was never yet
advanced by men with their tongues tied ;" there-
fore, as your elector who votes against his land-
lord's will must protect himself by dissimulation,
perhaps by dissimulation he contributes nothing to
the cause of freedom. He dares not proclaim, ad-
vocate, and defend the opinions for which he has
voted. His vote may be right, but twat is of little
service. Not so little, surely. Granted that he may
be obliged to withhold his opinions in public dis-
cussion, it is a little relief to him that he is not
obliged to withhold his vote in their favour. Well
if he could speak as well as act ; but better liberty
of action than no liberty at all. Besides our re-
viewerforgets that he dares not now speak in public
against the opinions of his oppressor. The Ballot
deprives him of no privilege he now enjoys, but it
doedmake his vote his own.
But, adds the pertinacious reviewer, the Ballot
will set upon him his oppressor's detective police ;
he will be worse off than ever. Now the oppressor
gets his vote, he is content with that ; "he does
not ask or care what be thinks." Indeed ! Such
has not been the result of our observation. We
have known instances to the contrary. What is
Worse, we have seen the elector whom we have
known to be liberallyinclined, come gradually, for
shame's sake, to defend, and make the best of, his
Tory vote. ',Lord BACON is quoted to prove what
no 0110 certainly ever doubted, that in cases where