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

F • ore cy , so long as public opinion in this country remained
what it was. The other system, which was practically
that of the United States, would leave them i❑ the state in

which they wire.

Theyhadbeen tending gradirdly more

and more at each 6UCCAssive election to a state of things in
which all the electors would be allowed to exercise their

independent judgment, as he believed the great body of the
electors had done at the lest election. Judging from such
moans of observation as he possessed, it was his firm belief

,hat even if the votes at the last election hail been taken

under the shield of any form of ballot which his hon. fliend
(Mr. Berkeley) could devise, the result would have been

substantially identical with that which open voting had
produced. (Hear.)
Mr. GREER was glad that the right bon. gentleman had
rested his argument on the results of experience, as the
advocates of the ballot were prepared to meet him on that

issue. (Hear, hear.) The rigfit hon. gentleman said a good
deal about the optional secret voting in the United States.
Was he prepared to concede such a system in a modified
form ? What was the result of experience with regard to
the system of open voting ? It was one of the principles of
the constitution of this country that every elector had a

right to exercise the franchise, Yet they knew that in point
of fact this right had not been enjoyed. The hon. member
then went, in the midst of great uproar, to contend that
the motion of the hon. member for Bristol only carried out

the principle of an act of Parliament passed during the
present reign for the protection of the voter; but the calls
for it division were so loud and persistent that but a few

broken sentences reached the gallery. He contended that
while the ge,Alemen of England persevered in the use of
the ballot at the'r clubs, to deny its aid to the poor voter

was mere hypocrisy. (Cheers.)
Lord J. RUSSELL, whose rising was the signal for loud
cheering, spoke as follows :- -Although, sir, I might well
claim as an excuse for not addressing the house upon this
subject, that I have often done so on former occasions, yet
as my hon. friend the member for Bristol, considering this
to be a new Parliament, has thought it necessary to make,
I may say, greater exertions to prove his case than he has
ever made before, I will venture to trouble the house with
some of the views which I entertain in opposition to his.
(Cheers.) It is not to be denied that my hen. friend and
his ballot committoehave made a very considerable impres-
sion upon a part at least of the public, and I have cer-
tainly thought it my duty to consider and reconsider the
various arguments which are adduced for and against the
measure. Sir, it appears to me that my hon. friend, and

those who are with him, rest theircase upon three assump
tions of fact and of opinion, all of which I believe to be
erroneous. The first assumption is, that at the present
moment there prevails so much of intimidation that it is
irnpossiblo that the opinions of those who are entrusted with
the legislative franchise can be fairly ascertained. Thenext
assumption is that the voter has a right, an indefeasible
right, to give his vote without reference to the opinions of
any other but himself, without being brought before any
tribunal of opinion to answer for his vote. (Hear, hear.)
The third assumption is, that there is a very general and
prevailing opinion throughout the country in favour of
secret voting. (Cheers.) Now, sir, I will consider these
several assumptions. The first that I have stated is, that
intimidation prevails to such an extent that the opinion of
the voters is not fairly ascertained. If, sir, the hon. gen-
tleman relies upon particular instances, I will allow that
there is no general election which passes without instances
of intimidation taking place and being brought forward in
this house. But when my hon. friend passes from the
proof which he has brought forward several times of differ-
ent instances—such as the conduct of the steward of the
Marquis of Waterford, in the present instance--when he
proceeds from these to state that the general elections did
not fairly represent the opinions of the constituent body,
I conceive that he is gravely in error. My hon. friend cited
as a proof of his proposition an instance which I should
hat, thought would have been one of the last he would
have chosen, viz., the elections after the Reform Bill.
Now, with respect to the elections for the counties for the
last quarter of the century, I remember that at the time
when the Reform Bill was first proposed, that of the 80
members who then represented England and Wales, 76
were elected to vote in favour of reform. I remember,
after that, when there was a question of the repeal of the
corn laws, and protection was the banner on one side and
free trade on the other, that the liberal members, who had
a vast majority at the time of the passing of the Reform
Bill, became a minority. I believe that, in both thoso
cases, such was the opinion of the electors who sent those
members. I believe that the great majority in favour of
the Reform Bill represented the opinion of the counties in
favour of that act; and I believe no less that the majority
in favour of protection likewise represented the opinion of
the counties, where views favourable to free trade un-
doubtedly did not prevail. And, sir, in opposition to the
view of my hou, friend, that had the ballot existed the corn
laws would sooner have been repealed, I will refer to a
statement made by Mr. Cobden. Mr. Cobden stated that
when he and Mr. Bright —and there could not be two more
powerful and talented advocator in any cause—(cheers)—
and of whom I may be permitted to say, that each day I
regret their loss to this house—(cheers)—Mr. Cobden stated
when he and Mr. Bright first went to Leeds in order to
hold a meeting there, there was some difficulty in filling a
room with those who were favourable to a repeal of the
corn laws, and when they passed through the streets they
were entirely unnoticed. Mr. Cobden went on to state
that the year of the repeal of the corn laws was the first in
which the working classes generally were in favour of such
a measure, and that then he and Mr. Bright were received
at Leeds with acclamations. I remember that in 1841,
when parliament was dissolved, the working classes were
told, on the one hand, that the repeal of those statutes
would bring cheap bread, and on the other that it would
produce low wages. Naturally their minds were confused
by these conflicting statements, and I believe that the
general impression was that the proposed steps in legisla-
tion would chiefly result in a general depression of wages.
Speaking of the influence of landlords, I would say that I
really believe that tenants generally prefer to vote with
their landlords rather than against them. I will give an.
, instance which I heard from Lord Spencer when Lord Al-
thorp, who was no advocate for the corn-laws, but who was
a liberal landlord, net likely to disturb any tenant on ac-
count of his political predilections. I asked him whether
his tenants generally were with him in favour of free trade,
and he told me that generally speaking they were protec-
tionists. I asked which way they were accustomed to vote,
and he told me that they usually vote with him. (Cheers
and laughter.) I mention this as an instance of thj
natural tendency of tenants to vote with their land-
lords. I may point as another instance of the manner
in which, under existing circumstances, the current of
public opinion is duly represented, to the fact that during
the struggle between protection and free trade the coun-
ties almost always returned conservative and therefore
protectionist candidates. But we see at the late elections
how the question of free trade and protection is at an end,
and all are free-traders; that liberal candidates have
again come into the places which they formerly held, and
that they have in male' instances received the same favour
as they enjoyed before the question of protection and free
trade arose. No intimidation on the part of landlords has
prevented the return of those liberal candidates—returns
which I believe, at all events I hope, will take place to a
still greater extent at the next election. (Cheers and
laughter.) I then come, sir, to the next assumption, which
is an assumption always made, but against which I, for
my part, must always protest, viz., that in contradistinc-
tion to every other el drn the country, the electors—the
freeholders, the leaseholders, and 10/. householders—are to
be accounted inviolable ; that they are to be considered
without sin and without error; and that there is to be loft
in their hands a distinct and free power of giving their vote
in whatever manner they please. I was amused, when I
considered the tenor of his speech, by my hon. friend stat-
ing that the right of voting is a trust. It is a trust in
common with all other powers in this country. Igo to the
Sovereign on the throne, who is a trustee for the benefit
of the country ; I go to the other house, the members of
which hold their seats upon trust for the public good ; I
say the same of the Ministers of the Crown ; I say the
same of the judges of the land ; and I say the same of the
electors, who are to choose the members of the Commons
House of Parliament, whose function it is to dispose of the
property and to maiutain the liberty of the people of this
country. Will any one contend that that is a wrong prin-
ciple, or that there is any class who ought to be free from
this inspection and control of public opinion, which at-
taches to persons iu the highest positions in this country?
I will take the case of the Chief Justice of the King's
Bench, Lord Ellenborongh. He was a person of great
talents, of eminent learning, and entirely qualified to,hold
that high position. We are told in that amusing and
instructive work, "The Lives of the Chief Justices," by
Lord Campbell, that Lord Ellenborongh felt extremely
hurt at the public comments which were made by the
press and by individuals as to his conduct on the bench.
Will the honourable gentleman say—indeed, I am sure
he will not say—that it was wrong that such comments
should have been made ? Shall I say, then, that in the
case of a man like Lord Ellenborough, dispensing justice
before the eyes of the world, that such comments are just
and reasonable, and useful, and yet that they ought not
to be made in the case of freeholders, and leaseholders,
and 10/. householders, who of all classes are to be freed
from all examination and observation? (Cheers.) My
hon. friend might make out a case, perhaps, if he were to
imagine that there were a system of universal suffrage, or
manhood suffrage, so that every person of full age could
give a vote ; but that would be a new theory, a theory not
of the British constitution, but of some other. What the
British constitution does, is to give to certain persons,
with certain qualifications and under certain conditions,
the power to choose representatives, and then to leave the
nation, and public in general, to control, criticise, and
check that power. (Cheers,) This is the rule which ex-
tends over judges on the bench, over ministers of the
crown. and over all persons exercising authority in this
country—it is the rule of public opinion. Take any
question as to China, as to Italy, or as to the present un-
happy state of India ; upon any of these the Government,
as the executive and the responsible counsellors of the
Crown, may adopt what measures they please, but they
must, nevertheless, in taking these measures, be subject
to public opinion, and to the sanction of this house.
(Hear, hear.) It is said that it is impossible that electors
can do wrong. I think I have known instances in which
voters have come round a candidate, have formed a com-
mittee, have canvassed for him, and, after all, have re-
ceived bribes from the other side, and have given their
votes for the opposite candidate. Now, let the manner of
voting be secret, as my hon. friend desires, and we should
then be liable to have committees acting in this way, and
at the close of an election informing the candidate of his
want of success, and assuring him of their endeavours in
his behalf, whilst, in point of fact, they might
have voted (anti it would be impossible to as-
certain the fact) for the other candidate. (Hear.) My
hon. friend says that a voter may give a promise to a
candidate, and yet be at liberty to break that promise. I
suppose I must accept that as good morality, but I only
say it is strange and new to me. (Rear.) My hon. friend
put the case of Brown. Brown was very much intimidated.
I beg to bring Jones and Robinson into court. (Laughter.)
Brown is asked by his landlord to go and canvass for a
candidate who is going to stand for a county. He says the
election will not take place for some time, but we aregoing
to have a dinner in favour of conservative policy ; you are
a good conservative, and if you will take the head of the
table and give the toasts, and lead the way, it will be a
great advantage. Brown says certainly. He presides at
the dinner, gives the wrong toast, he makes the wrong
speech, sings the wrong song, and having done all this
and persuaded the gentlemen at the table that he is an ex-
cellent conservative, he goes on the day of election with
another ticket and votes for the liberal candidate. (Hear,
from Mr. Roebuck). The hon. and learned member for
Sheffield thinks that a fair proceeding. (Laughter.) lam
not now speaking of the morality of the vote. But this is
the sort of thing people mean when they say the ballot is
un-English - that treachery is un-English, that promise-
breaking is un- English. (Hear.) I am inclined to bo of
that opinion. (Cheers.) I now come to the last assump-
tion of my hon. friend, that the proposal of the ballot
meets with great favour in the country. I believe that
although there is a large party in favour of the ballot—
that Although a great body of the electors feel sore after

an election—that although they believe intimidation has
taken place—yet I do not believe that the general opinion
of the country is in favour of secret voting. I have had
occasion to address great numbers of th people—from
3000 to 4000 at the time—and I have stated my objecti ns
to the ballot, and I have always found the meetings nearly
equally divided, if I had not the majority in my favour, •
when I spoke against the ballot. I believe there
is much truth in the clear statement which my right hon.
friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made with
respect to the ballot. He has entered into details
respecting the American elections. He has, shown
that whilst there is the ballot in that country, the ballot
is by no means syionymous with secret voting. Yt u may
often know by the form of the ticket which way a man
votes. In other instances he takes a ticket of a particular
colour, blue or yellow. If he does that there is an end of
secresy, and an end of the security against intimidation ;
because if you say that the secresy is optional, you at once
give the customer, the landlord, the means of defeating
the secrecy altogether. He may say, if you vote secretly
—if you have a voting paper done up in an.envelope, an 4 it
is not the colour or shape of ours, we know how you have
voted, and will consider you as much an enemy as if we
knew you had voted for the opposition. There is no resort
but a compulsory secresy, under which no man shall be
allowed to state what his vote was. Now, does any man
believe that would take place more in England than in
America? Does any man believe that the truth telling
people of this country world not, nearly every one of them
say, " I am so eager for the return of Sir Thomas So and
So, that I shall give bin mp vote, and I hope my neigh-
bours will do the same ?" That would be the general prac-
tice, and secrecy would be confined to a few; and being
confined to a few would not b.nefit that few. (Hear.) I
think there is mischief in introducing a new mode of vot-
ing, which would tend to take away something from the
openness of the character of Englishmen. I think there
is mischief in introducing a considerable innovation that
is not likely to succeed. I cannot believe there would -be
a complete change in the character of Englishmen owing to
this new mode of voting, and I think as far as it goes that
the evil would far overpower the good. (Hear.) I do
nct believe that the elections in this country, generally
speaking, are produced by intimidation and corruption,
and I cannot agree with my honourable friend when
he says that open voting is a corrupt agreement be
tween one rogue and another. (Great laughter.) We
have gone on for a long time with this imperfect and
corrupt mode of voting. We have gained great liberty,
and it was not until of late years that this mode of secret
voting was thought of. Liberty has made greater ad-
vances in this country than in any other country in Eu-
rope, and there i s more freedom here than in the United
States of America. (Hear.) Look at the Liberal measures
which have been passed during the last 2.5 or 30 years, un-
der the system of open voting. I will not go into detail,
but I may mention the carrying of parliamentary reform,
the repeal of the corn-laws, the opening of corporations,
and a number of other measures; all of which have been
carried into effect under that system of voting which my
hon. friend says is au agreement between one rogue and
another. I beg to demur, on behalf of this much maligned
house and this much maligned constitution, to the state-
ment of my hon. friend. (Hear.) He says, last of all,
only consider the case of Australia--in Victoria you have
the most wonderful speCimen of secret voting, which has
succeeded admirably, aid even the Attorney-General has
been convinced. The constitution of Victoria to which he
refers is that which I introduced two years ago. When we
are told that it is to be held up as a great object of imita-
tion I am reminded of a passage in the amusing play
_ot
" The Rovers," where one of the characters tells the glori-
ous news that the plans have been successful—that the
venerated and inestimable inheritance of Britons, Magna
Charta, was signed last Friday 'week, the 3d• of Jolye
(Laughter.) The remarks on the new constitution of Vic-
toria are of that kind. For my part I should be waiting a
few years. Before following the example of Victoria,
which may be a good example, we, the older and more
cautious assembly of the two, may wait a few years,: in
order to see whether this triumph of secret voting does
answer as satisfactorily as it promises to do. (Hear.)
With regard to the statement of public opinion, I cannot
avoid noticing one of the remarks made by the hon. mem-
ber for Westminster, who seconded the motion. He said,
and made it apparent by figures, that the greatenajority
of the liberal party in the last parliament voted in favour o t
the ballot—that there were, perhaps, not more than 10 or 20
persons out of office who voted against the ballot. Now I
don't know why gentlemen who have been elected by
large constituencies should be excluded from the right. of
voting merely because they have accepted office. (Hear.)
The hon. members says that as the great majority of Libe-
rals Were in favour of the ballot, they had only to go' to
the noble lord at the head of the Treasury and tell him
they would not support his Government any longer unless
he and his Cabinet carried the ballot. Now that, coming
from an adherent of my noble friend, is the most degrading
proposal I ever heard. (Cheers.) Sir R. Peel at one time
said the state of the Irish Church is such that it forces me
to abandon the views I have held respecting Catholic eman-
cipation. I could understand the same statesman saying
the course of the discussion on the corn laws induces me
to think that the beat course for the welfare of the conne
try, and one which is not injurious to conservative institu-
tions, will be the repeal of the corn laws ; but to tell gen-
tlemen who are not convinced—to tell members of the Cabi-
net that because the great majority of their supporters vete
in favour of the ballot they must do the same—would be a
most disgraceful proposal, and a Minister of the Crown
whom the member making such a proposition professes to
respect, will show he deserves that respect by scornfully
rejecting any such proposition. (Cheers.) My hon. friend
talked of a person—a tenant or tradesman—giving his vote
against his opinion. It has justly been said that that vote
is a lie, and that the member returned in consequence of
that vote is the incarnation of a lie. I should say that the
votes of members of a Cabinet in favour of the ballot
against their own opinions—against their decided convic-
tions—would be pronounced a lie, and that a measure,
carrying out the ballot as their deliberate opinion, would
be but the embodiment of that lie. I must say, that I
think my hon. friend deserves success, from the ability he
has shown and the perseverance he has manifested on this
question. (Hear, hear.) For my own part, if Parliament
should decide that the ballot is to be the law of the land,
I, like others, must bow to that law ; but, until it igmade
the law, so long as I can give a vote in the House of Com-
mons on the subject, that vote will be given against secret
voting, and in favour of the old and national system of
open voting. (Cheers.)
Mr. BERKELEY then replied, amid cries of "Divide,
divide." He remarked that in the case of Victoria the
experiment of the ballot, so far as it had been triode had
proved perfectly successful; and after what had taken place
in the city during the last election, he was surprised that
his noble friend had not yet made up his mind to support
the ballot. He had a strong hope that a change would
shortly take place in the opinions of the house, but he felt
that it would not arise from anything that would occur
within these doors, but from the strong feeling that would
be brought to bear upon Parliament from without. -
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER wished- to
explain an unintentional misrepresentation which hishon.
friend had given of his meaning. What he stated with're-
gard to America was, that vote by ballot prevailed gene-
rally throughout the United states, but that there was
only one state in which it had been accompanied by com-
pulsory secresy—that that compulsory secresy had existed
for only two years, and had since been repealed ; and that
therefore it did not appear that there was one of the United
States in which vote by ballot was now accompanied. by
compulsory secresy. (Hear, hear.)
The house then divided—
Aes
Noyes
The motion was thus lost.
REGISTRATION OF NEWSPAPERS.
Mr. AYRTON, in moving for a copy of the case sub-
mitted to. the law officers of the Crown, respecting the re-
gistration of newspapers and other printed papers, and
their opinion thereon, complained that the Government
had not submitted a full and entire case for consideration.,
inasmuch as by the old statutes it was provided that no per-
son should print or publish any newspaper, pamphlet, or
other paper containing any news or any remark thereon
on any matter in Church or State, which shall not exceed
two sheets, without giving recognizance to the Crown for
4001., with two sureties for the like amount. The necessity
for registration, he contended, had expired with the stamp
duties ou newspapers, and the case ought to have been
submitted, as it affected publications of all kinds, and. not
have been confined to newspapers only.
Mr. WILLIAMS seconded the motion.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said be
could not quite understand the object of the honourable
gentleman's motion, but he could not feel justified i* com-
plying with the terms of is. Two years ago, when the
compulsory stamp was abolished, he had distinctly stated
that the law effecting the registration of newspapers would
be in no way affected by the measure which abolished' the
stamp duty. (Cries of " Divide.")
Mr. AYRTON said he would not divide the house, but
would take another opportunity of bringing the subject
for ward.

TUE SUPERANNUATION BILL.
Lord NAAS moved for leave to bring in a bill to repeal
the 27th section of the Superannuation Act of 1831, and
entered into a lengthened and elaborate detail of the ques-
tion at issue between the civil service and the Government.
Mr. T. HANKEY seconded the motion.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER opposed it,
and explained his reasons by a multiplicity of figures, and
a reference to the data of Government actuaries.
Sir F. BARING said he hoped Government would al-
low the bill to ba brought in, and have the matter fully
discussed.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that he
bad no objection to the introduction of the bill on the un-
derstanding that it was for the purpose of allowing a full
discussion of the question, and that it did not pledge the
Government, to the principle of the bill.
Leave was then given to introduce the bill.
CONVEYANCE OF MAILS BY RAILWAYS.
Mr. WILSON brought in a bill for the improvement of
the law relating to the conveyance of mails by railways.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
the house adjourned at ten minutes past one o'clock.

BIRTHS.
OF A SON.
On the 29th June, at the Dowager Lady Bateman's, ix
Great Cumberland place, the Hon. Mrs. George Dash.
wood.
On the 30th June, at Putney, the wife of Herbert IS.
Play ford .
OF A DAUGIITER.,

On the 28th June, Mrs. Moss Woolf, of 16, Wel'close'
square.
On the 28th June, at Grove-hill, Worcestershire, the
wifo of Benjamin Bright, Esq.
M Alt.R lED.
On the 30th June, at St. George's, Hanover-square,
Count Aurelio SAffl, of Forti, Romagna, to Georgians
Janet, second daughter of John Cz aufurd, Esq., of Auche'
names, N. B.

On the 27th June, at St. George's, Hanover-squarn, Cap
tain Wm. W. W. Humbley, late 9th Lancers, to Elizabeth
Nelson, only surviving daughter of the late Wm. Nelson
Watson, Esq., of Gainsborough, Lincolnshire.