The Sun.
London, England, 1857-07-06 00:00:00

THE SUN,

LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, JULY 6

worn-out arguments in the teeth of the Liberal
party. Lord PALMERSTON has, as usual, played
his cards well. Every one knew which way he
would vote, but he cleverly gets off with a " pair,',
amuses himself with the QUEEN and the pictures
at Manchester, and leaves to his heavy colleague I
of the Exchequer the heavy task of speaking
against popular demands. Sir G. C. LEWIS
seems, indeed, always willing to be the PALMER-
STON scape-goat ; it is very good-natured of him,
and we are sure the good-tempered Premier
appreciates the service. Hardly, perhaps, did he
expect that Lord JOHN RUSSELL also would give
him so nice a lift. The Rival Reform Bill
maker—that lie should come out with such a
saucy oration against the one thing which
the vast majority of Liberals demand, what could
suit him better? He is now relieved from all fear
of being supplanted by Lord JOHN. No one
would think of the latter to •settle the Chinese and
Indian difficulties ; and assuredly no Reformer
would now wish him to be the constructor of a
new Reform Bill.

Lord JOHN sets about his task of bearding the I
Liberals quite in orderly style—an exordium,
three divisions, and a peroration. He acknow-
ledges that the Ballot Society has produced " con-
siderable impression upon a large portion of the
public".—which at least looks as if a large portion
of the public had either experienced or witnessed
the bribery or intimidation, for the prevention of
which, only, does any one wish for the ballot. His
three heads of discourse are three assumptions
which he attributes to the advocates of the ballot
—the prevalence of intimidation, the indefeasible
right of the voter to give his vote irrespective
of the opinions of others, and that the Ballot is
generally regarded with favour throughout the coun-
try. His peroration is, that he, the said Lord JOHN
RUSSELL, will bow if Parliament makes him, but
that while he has a vote he will give it against
the Ballot. Well, this is quite consistent. Lord
Jonx sets his back against Church Rates and open
voting, and tells the Liberals that they shall never
attack these main supports of the Crown and
Constitution but through his body.
Ia regard to his first point, Lord JOHN went
through the history of the last thirty years, to
show that the opinions of the constituencies were,
on the whole, fairly represented, and that there-
fore the intimidation complained of did no sub-
stantial mischief. Of course, this was all merely
Lord Joines opinion, and might go for what it
was worth, just as ours might do in totally dis-
senting from many of his illustrations. But letting
that pass, we scout the principle, that because on
the average the result of virtuous and vicious
votes might bring about the same result, we ought
to be indifferent to the character of the voting,
Surely, we are not to do evil that good may
come ! If secret voting and bribed and intimi-
dated voting would elect the same members, we
should still demand the mode by which each
person should vote honestly. We believe Lord
JOHN'S illustrative statements, but we indignantly
reprobate the base principle they are adduced to
sustain.

Next, as to his second argument—he protests
that "the freeholders, leaseholders, and 10/. house-
holders, ought not, in contradistinction to the
other classes, to be counted infallible." Well, and
who put the votes into these confessedly fallible
hands ? Did not my Lord JOHN RUSSELL take a
most active part in doing it? We are quite ready
to let the other classes share in the representation.
" No," but the Whig Lord would. reply, "if you
descend lower, you do not meet with adequate
education and property to qualify for the suffrage."
We rejoin, " Then the excluded classes are less
qualified to judge of a candidate and of public
questions than those to whom you give the suf-
frage—if so, on what principle of common sense
do you want to subject the selected voters to the
judgment and influence of their inferiors—so
much their inferiors that you will not give them
a vote ?"

Lord JOHN then gravely descants on the
responsibility of the Crown, the Judges, the
Ministry, and even of Lord ELLENBOItOUGH himself
—to public opinion, and the comments of the
press—one would really think he had been rub-
bing up his AscruNEs against CTESIPHON--." you
see," he says, like that orator, "every one is re-
sponsible, why not 101. householders ?" Yes, my
lord, every magistrate and official at Athens was
responsible, and ought to be so, to the voters—
but the voters by ballot then were responsible to
no one, for their votes, nor ought voters to be
so here. They are the ultimate governing power
of the country ; they ought to be, and they were
selected by Lord JOHN, for their supposed com-
petency. If incompetent, then, throw the suffrage
open to all. But, in truth, can any honest man
have patience with the dishonest fiction of the elec-
tors being trustees for the non-electors. It is an
impudent hoax to represent them as such, and
Lord JOHN knows it. The absurdities of the sup-
position are endless. Who is to punish the trustees
if they fail of their duty ? Indeed, at half the
contests in the kingdom they do fail of it, for the
non-electors vote at the hustings for the Liberal
candidate, and the electors, under intimidation or
bribery, go to the poll next day and return the
Tory. Public opinion—the non-electors public
public opinion, what do electors care, or
dare to care for it? If these political outsiders
are to have an opinion, why then give them
straightforwardly a vote as its proper expres-
sion.

As to the third point we can only say that the
result of Lord JOHN'S observations and of ours
differs—he speaks of the crowds he addressed
in London—why, had he promised to vote for
the Ballot, if they held up their hands for it,
will he deny that a majority of ten to oae would
hove required him to do it ? Adverting to
America, Lord JOHN RUSSELL took up Sir G. C.
LEWIS'S representation that voting by Ballot there
was open, not secret voting : that by the colour
of the tickets and other devices, the dominant
party found out by standing near the ballot-box,
how individuals voted—that secrecy was at best
optional, and the votes well known—hence, that
America is no precedent to the friends of secret
voting. But curiously enough cord JOHN, asserts
that there is more liberty here than in the
United States. He asserts that the voting is
practically open, then that they have less freedom
than we have—a singular recommendation of open
voting surely, that it gives us too little liberty, and
Americans still less. The truth is, the dominant
party in America uses the open Ballot for its own
purposes, just as the dominant party uses the
poll-book here, and the only legitimate inference is
that both are wrong. That tyrant mobs, and
tyrant landlords and the like, ought not know
their neighbours' vote.
It is quite plain that we must now put the
screw on the Premier. He has not committed
himself by any foolish engagement never to vote
with the people. ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-
NINE votes and TWENTY-FIVE pairs—can, if they
will, compel a, Minister to anything. The league
Triumvirate, have nothing else now to do, and
nothing ttaey could better do, than to head the
outside -movement for the Ballot. We confess
we would not giire anything for a Reform Bill
Withortt it. A lowered qualification without the

ballot would but give a more dependent constitu-
ency. A re-apportionment of the members would,
again, be in favour of the counties and the land-
lords' serfs—the one great point is to make the
present votes real votes—the votes not of a LAND-
LORD, not of a MORTGAGEE, not of a BANKER, not
of a CUSTOMER, not of a CREDITOR, not even of a
PURCHASER, but the VOTE OP AN ELECTOR.
Nothing but secret voting can ensure this.

Cannot England hope to fight her own battles ?
Or, rather, be it said, are we always to be sup-
posing ourselves to be dependent, in some myste-
rious way or another, upon the aid of foreign
mercenaries ?

Conspicuous upon the list of the Parliamentary
business for the week now commenced, we observe
the threat (we can't for the life of us call it any-
thing else) the threat for Thursday next of a
Petition of Complaint from the Officers of the
Swiss Legion—a document to be presented to the
House of Lords on behalf of those malcontents by
the extremely good•natured Earl of MALICESBWRY.
It is always in regard to something relating to
these kind of "Free Lances" that these grumblings
and growlings after war-time become audible.
Sometimes the dissatisfaction expressed has re-
ference to the outlandish auxiliaries themselves,
sometimes to the gallant English , gentlemen
by whom they are officered. But to one
or other the expostulations heard at these times,
on the right hand and on the left, here, there,
and everywhere, invariably have reference. And
at the same time, as invariably—whenever the
war ends, we look around us only to find in rela-
tion to these Foreign Mercenaries that they have
never once been of the slightest use whatso-
ever ! That we have put ourselves to great
trouble in gathering them together in the first
instance, and afterwards still more in feeding
them, and clothing them, and drilling them, and
so forth, down to the very end of the Chapter !
Merely to find that our native forces actually
engaged at the seat of war were left all the while
to get through the struggle as they might best
be enabled to manage it ! Our condottieri at
home " eating their-heads off," as the saying is—
and never once, from the Declaration of War to
the Final Ratification of the Treaty of Peace,
firing one shot against the foe, drawing a single
sword, or thing a solitary bayonet ! We
then set our wits to work to get rid of
them as best we may—paying them their. arrears
—giving them compensation [" compensation"
for what, however, it would be rather difficult
certainly to conjecture !]—and grumbled at after
all, in spite of pay and in spite of compensation !
Let us hope, however, that our latest expe-
riences in this matter may turn out at last to have
given us a wholesome lesson—such as may tend
in the next emergency to disabuse our minds alto-
gether of this extraordinary and incomprehensible
crotchet about certain intangible, invisible, un-
imaginable advantages accruing from the organi-
zation of a corps of foreign mercenaries ! The
English people as a mass have always, time out
of mind, been averse to anything at all of this
description. They have been accustomed to rely,
under GOD, upon themselves—upon the goodness
of their cause and the strength of their own right
arms. Other maritime powers—Genoa and Venice
for example—have enrolled, habitually and syste-
matically, companies of Soldiers of Fortune from any
region of the earth, of all tongues, of all religions,
of all complexions. Not so has it ever been with
the greatest maritime race of all, that of the
Anglo-Saxon multitude. Englishmen—lrishmen
—Seotehmen : these are the only recognisable
diversities—among these we have found the

sources of a noble rivalry and a magnanimous

emulation. A Swiss Legion—a German Legion
—an Italian Legion : anything in the shape of a
hired auxiliary force has ever and ever been—will
ever and ever be alien to the thoughts of a British
multitude. We have had quite enough of these
Follies. We have paid quite enough for them.
Henceforth we will have " none on't"--none of
this silly,and expensive, and utterly useless
~playie "playing at
soldiers" with a paroel of Foreign
its who appear only to be brought together
for ec
then express purpose of wearing out our home-
spun regimentals, of swilling our beer, of guttling
Recruits,
our of getting paid very absurdly for
doio, rations,in
and then—Grumbling I
noth

LATEST NEW S.