The Sun.
London, England, 1857-07-01 00:00:00

and in the next a terror of loss of life or mutilation. Of
the latter he bad an admirable example before him in the

right hon. gentleman the Vice-President of the Board of
Trade. and he could not help Raping that it was a very
hard case when candidates were compelled to look for

their only protection against mob violence to the quan-
tity of their brains and the thickness of their skulls. The
broad handkerchief of the Times was now waving in the

air still wet with tears for the right hon. gentleman.
That journal not only mourned for him, but actually
embalmed his wounds, in three or four leading articles.
How came it, be asked, that the Times did not look to
the other cases of violence that occurred during the last

elections ? The treatment received by the right
hon.
gentleman was bad enough and much to be deprecated,
but why did not the Times direct its attention to those
cases of violence that took place in Ireland ! Not a word
was said aboutthem, but the right hon. gentleman some:

how or other, enjoyed the favour of the limes, and all
its sympathies was reserved for him. He thought that
his noble friend the member for the city of London was
a good deal to blame for the acts of violence and intimi-

dat'on that disgraced the recent elections. In more than
one part of the country the noble lord had been cited as
a great authority under whom those who committed the
violence had acted. The noble lord hal told the people
over and over again that the elective franchise was a
trust. (Hear, hear, from Lord J. Russell.) He very

much doubted the soundness of that proposition, because
if an elactor discharged his duty by voting for whom he
pleased without let or hindrance, he defied the noble lord
to show him what the breach of trust was in the reverse

case. But what he wished to say was that the noble lord
was responsible for much of the violence perpetrated at
elections. Two or three sessions ago he brought forward
the case of the Cork election, at which the supporters of
a gallant friend of his, Gen. Chatterton, were brutally
used, although he admitted that the two representatives
of Cork were gentlemen of the highest respectability, who
would be the first toset their faces against such violence.
Nevertheless, some disgraceful things were done, and,
according to the evidence, they were instigated by the
priests, who said to the people, " Lord J. Russell tells
you that the elective franchise is a trust; now, boys, all
who vote for Chatterton are guilty of a breach of trust."
If such arguments were addressed to ignorance or ma•
lignity therecould be no mistake as to the result, for a
mob was not able to discriminate between what the noble

lord really meant and what they believed him to say
(Hear.) He held in his hand a polling-book, got up by
a society of non-electori in Rochdale with a view to
exclusive dealing, and a more complete instrument
of tyranny he never saw. The electors were designated
under their various trade or crafts, the supporters of Sir
Alexander Ramsay being distinguished from those of
Mr. Miall, and, although there could be no doubt that
the book had been got up against the former, he was
sure that Mr. Miall would scout the very idea of such a
publication, for a man more fond of liberty and of free-
dom of voting in elections did not live. (Hear, hear.)
Here, again, the noble lord the member for the city was
cited as an authority for these shameful and tyrannical
proceedings. "The theory of the present representative
system," said the compilers of the Rochdale polling-
book, "according to a great constitutional authority—
Lord John Russell—is that 10/. householders hold their
votes in trust for the class who do not possess that pro-
perty qualification, as well as in their own right, and
this vindicates the practice of publishing a list of the
voters' names." (Hear, hear.) He would not trouble
the house with any more details regarding the violence
and intimidation perpetrated at the last elections. The
scenes that occurred at Drogheda, at Lisburne, is Gal-
way, and in other parts of Ireland were perfectly shock-
ing, and it was very interesting to read the truthful ac-
counts given by the reporters of the malversation of the
franchise, and compare them with the mendacious state-
ments of interested parties. But, instead of dwelling
upon the Irish elections, he would proceed to direct the
attention of the house to the elections which recently
took place in the colony of Vict iria. The establishment
of the ballot in Anstralia was mainly due to Mr. Nichol-
son, and, though opposed by the same arguments as in
this country, the system had operated in the most satis-
factory manner. The hon. member quoted from the
Australian newspapers paragraphs referring to the re-
cent elections in that colony, showing that in no case
had there been any violence or disturbance, and stating
that the ballot had imposed a decided and welcome check
on the noisy and turbulent demonstrations which had
hitherto been laseparable from a contested election. In
addition to the tranquillity with which they had been
conducted these elections had been characterised by great
completeness of polls—a fact which was an answer to
the objection that in this country it was not from terror,
but from apathy, that persons abstained from voting.
Hitherto the Australian elections had exhibited the came
paucity of voters compared with the number of electors
that was to be found in England, but at the last election
the number of voters polled in some of the districts was
within one or two of the whole number upon the regis-
ter. (Hear.) The expenses, too, had been greatly
diminished ; and such had been the effect produced that
many of those who were formerly opposed to the ballot
were now to be found in the ranks of its supporters.
Among others, the Attorney-General, who before the
election was particularly hostile to the ballot, had an-
nounced his determination in future to support that mode
of election. (Hear.) Sincerely thanking hon. gentlemen
for the attention which they had given him while he
brought tkem these details, without which he could not
establish his case, he submitted that he had now proved
to the house by facts that wherever the ballot had been
tried it had been productive of none but the hap-
piest results, and that there was nothing to beset against
it except suppositions, guesses, and calculation that it
would not do in England what it had done elsewhere
under precisely similar circumstances. (Hear.) A Libe-
ral Government never appeared to him to such disad-
vantage as when it opposed a Liberal measure, and was
forced to seek protection under the gaberdine of Tory-
ism. (Hear.) That was a position iu which he was
sorry to see his hon. friends, and it was matter of great
regret to him that in this matter he stood against his
friends and 'A as defeated by them. It was now, how-
ever, practically understood that the ballot was opposed
by the aristocracy and landocracy, because they would
not give up the power over the constituencies which was
given to them by open voting. (Hear.) But why
should nut they give up that power? They lived in a
loyal country—a country in which the aristrocracy was
beloved by the people—(hear, hear)—and a country
which was essentially anti-democratical. Then, why
did they not seek to gain from the love of the people
that which they now compelled by an usurped au•
thority ? (Hear, hear.) Depend upon it they would
stand much better with the people if they did so. It
was unmanly, and showed moral cowardice to adhere
to the existing state of things, not to trust to the people
in whom they might confide, and rather to compel obe-
dience from their fear than to obtain it from their love.
lie had erer seen that it was impossible that any reform
bill should be final unless protected votes were one of its
provisions, and he now entreated the Government, at the
last moment, to adopt the conviction arrived at by their
friend Sidney Smith, whom they bad so often quoted,
who wrote the most brilliant pamphlet, but unsound as
it was brilliant, in favour of open voting and against the
ballet. What said Sydney Smith? In a recently published
letter, written in reply to a correspondent who had com-
plimented him upon his able writing, he said with
regard to the ballot, "But it will come, though I write
never so wisely." He (Mr. Berkeley) told them that it
must and would come—(cheers)—and that therefore it
was infinitely better that they should give to the people
that which they-would at the present moment receive as
a precious boon rather than wait and be compelled to
surrender t them that which they would demand as a
right. (Cheers.) The bon. gentleman concluded by mov-
ing for leave to introduce a bill to cause the votes of the
Parliamentary electors of Great Britain and Ireland to
be taken by way of ballot.
Sir J. V. SHELLEY, in seconding the motion, con-
gratulated the friends of the ballot on the prospect of
having the question properly debated on that occasion ;
last year there had been only one speech on the subject,
and no member of the Government had expressed his
opinion. It was difficult for him (Sir J. Shelley) to say
anything after the speech of his hon. friend, which had
far outshone any of his former performances, and had en-
tirely disposed of the objection that the ballot was un-
English. Another objection was that it would be ineffec-
tual to stop bribery and corruption. It was hard-to say
what would be the result, but nothing could be worse
than the present state of things. As long as they had per-
sons bad enough to bribe, there would be found persons
poor enough and weak enough to accept the bribe ; but
the screw now put on was worse than bribery, which pro-
duced one good to a poor man, that itgave hirn the means
of paying his rent ; but to tell a man that he would lose
his customer was tweet un-English. (Hear, hear.). He
had the honour of representing one of the largest coneti-
tuencies in the kingdom, and he could assure the house
there was no single question on which his constituents
felt so strongly as on the necessity of giving protection
to the electors. There was no doubt that for some cause
or other a very small proportion of the electors recorded
their votes. He had himself gone through a contest, and
he had seen ladies driving about to different shops put-
ting on the screw ; the result of this system was, a
number of most respectable tradesmen made themselves
non-electors in order to avoid the difficulties they would
be placed in. To skew how the system acted he would
read to the house a report of a conversation between a
friend of his and a respectable tradesman in Westmin-
ster who had formerly resided in a county town, where
be was known to have been a strong politician, but was
now doing a flourishing trade in London. The hon.
baronet then read the report of the conversation in which
the tradesman in question, who was designated as "Mr.
C ," declared he had not voted at all ; he was afraid to
do so on account of his wife and family. He had never
voted against his conscience, but his conscience told him
he had a wife and family to support. He dared not re
main on the register, and was therefore a non-elector,
and thousands were in the same position in the city of
%Vesta:inflater. He had voted once before for General
Evans, and had lost three of his bust customers in con-
secinence. He (Sir J. Shelley) would not wish to give
the name of this person, but he would have no objection
to mention it privately to any hon. member. The con-
versation was a sufficient proof that many deprived them-
selves of the elective franchise on this account. The
hon. baronet then read an extract from a speech of Mr.
Grote in 1833 on this aspect of the question, and con-
tinued that he believed no person would now stand up in
the house and say that the ballot would not enable a man
to give his vote according to his conscience. He had ob-
tained an analysis of the divisions on this question in the
last ten years. In 1855, the numbers in favour of the
measure were—present, 166; tellers, 2 ; pairs, 36—total,
204. Against it—present, 218 ; tellers, 2 ; pairs, 36
total, 256; giving a majority of 52, or 15 more than in
the previous session,but 8 less than in 1853. The majo-
rity was composed fl 3 members of the Government, 10
Whigs, and 233 Tories. These numbers proved that the
Liberals had nothing to do but stick together on the qua-
tiou. However much they might deplore the fall of the
present Government, yet it came to this, that if they sin.
ce:ely believed that a reform bill-WAS 1104?e8a3rYi and, at