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

the same time, believed n• reform bill would be success-
ful which did not give protection to the voters, they bad
only to stick together, and not rest satisfied unless the
ballot was made a Cabinet question. (Hear.) They might
have a change of-government, but it would be only be a
tempDrary one, and right hon, and hon. gentlemen who
now opposed, would be supporters of ithe ballot. In Vie
division last year the ayes present were 113, tellers 2,
pairs 43 • the noes were, present 153, tellers 2, pairs 43,
making thei majority 40, There voted with the majority
27 Liberals and Peelites, of whom 13 were members of
the Government, leaving only 14 Liberal independent
members voting against the motion, and there was only
one Liberal member amongst the pairs. Several mem-
bers of the Government voted in favour of the motion,
including Lord Duncan, Sir B. Hall, Admiral Berkeley,
Sir A. Cockburn, Sir R. Bothell, Mr. Bouverie, Mr. C.
Villiers, Mr. .11orsman, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Massey, and
Mr. Osborne. He believed there would be a majority in
favour of the motion this evening ; he would not, how-
ever, further trespass on the house, but begged to se-
cond the proposition. (Cries of " Divide.")

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQ UER said that
after the direct appeal male to the members of the Go-
vernment, and put in so calechetical a form by the hon. mem-
ber for Bristol, he should be wanting in courtesy to him if
he did not take the eeriest opportunity of stating the
views which he had formed on this question. He regretted
to find that these views mould not coincide with those ear
tertained generally on either side of the house. He was un-
able to adopt the views sc,clearly stated by the honourable
gentleman who made this motion ; he did not form a very
sanguine estimate of the beneficial results of the ballot ;
but, on the other hand, he did not share the alarm with
which it was regarded by some gentlemen on both sides of
the house. He trusted they would afford him an opportu-
nity of stating as briefly as he could the grounds on which
he had arrived at this =elusion, after the best consider-
ation he could give to a subject so difficult and on which
such discordant opinions were entertained. When a ques-
ti on was first brought under the consideration of that house
it sometimes happened that the member who introdneadit
arranged the arguments in favour of his opinion its a gene-
ral discursive manner, somewhat in the form of an essay,
with a view of introducing the subject to the house, and
showing the arguments on which his proposition rested.
Such was the state of the present question, when it was
first brought under the notice of the house by Mr. Grote;
and all who heard the speeches delivered by him during a
seriesmore
elegant
gteoelhfpne
gt7yaga:huaeoatdr sot
Ilia
Inmumdtgi
ougubshtaethtz
the hands
stated
:Get
Inae
sehidwit:
iftthhwhtaehansed hsi
didacticomt hn
greaterp
e.o
gentleman
questionas bpt
clearness
period
impossible
mi
ot had na;ptoaf
srrtsol
from
oppo-
site, and with him it had reached the stage which he would
venture to describe as the humorous, and the hon. gentle-
man had, with great command of facts, great play of
imagination and wit, annually brought it before the house
in a most diverting manner. Having passed through those
whether whichor not
te would ulbdacllaollt
w theas practicaladapted
two stages, the subject might now fairly be considered to
reached
hethird,
haveer
and consider
to the,wants and circumstances of this country. In order
to arrive at a practical result on this question, the natural
course would be to consult experience as to what effects
the ballot had produced in other countries. If they looked
to the continent they would find a state of things totally
different from this country. (Hear, hear.) It was difficult
to profit by the experience of the continent, as no powerful
state there had hitherto been able to consolidate a parlia-
mentary gOvernment. The only states in which a free con-
stitutional government existed were those of the second
rank. In reference to the operation of the ballot on the
continent he would take the liberty of referring to the
statement made by a distinguished statesman and political
writer who was examined before a committee of the house
in 1837—he meant M. Da Tocqueville, the author of a
work on the Democracy of America and another on the
French Revolution. Re was examined bosom the bribery
committee, and in answer to some questions upon the
ballot, stated that the object of the secret voting in France
was to protect the voters against the power of the Govern-
ment. The executive Government was the omnipotent
being which the voter in France dreaded, against which
he sought the protection of secret voting. That being the
case, the experience of France was of little value in this
country, where there was no overwhelming influence of a
centralised bureaucracy to overawe the voter. Neither
did ho think that the example of this institution in some
colonies, where it had lately been introduced amongst a
new society, could be of much assistance to a country
whose social and political condition was so different. The
country to which they must look for a lesson in this regard
was the United States of America, and he believed be
would not misrepresent the supporters of the ballot if he
said their object was to introduce into England the mode
of voting practised in America. The hon. gentleman said
the working of the system there was perfectly successful,
and held up the practice of the United States as a model
for imitation.
Mr. BERKELEY was understood to say he held up as
an example the principle, but not the details of the insti.
Wien.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had misun-
derstood the hon. gentleman, bat to ascertain the principle
they should look to the details of the mode of voting now
practised in the United States. The motion then before the
house was "That leave be given to being in a bill to cause
the votes of the Parliamentary voters of Great Britain
and Ireland to be taken by ballot." The motion assumed
that they knew what was the meaning of the word ballot
as applied to elections. There was no mode of ballot known
to our law ; there was no legal meaning attached to the
word ; and to arrive at its moaning they should take it
as it is established in:the United States, and where its mode
of working is not a mere detail, but the principle of the
system. On this subject he would quote the authority of
a recent traveller, Mr. Tremenheere, who had taken every
pains to inform himself on the subject. He said—"au the
United States the word' ballot' has, in its general accepta-
tion, nothing to do with the word ball, but means a
piece of paper, with the names of the candidate or candi-
dates written or printed upon it.' In the Southern and
Western States generally the voting is entirely open, and
usually viva voce. At all elections in the ether States the
friends of the different candidates stand round the voting
places, with the written or printed voting papers (called
tickets) in their hands and as each voter approaches he
takes from the hands of one of the agents of the candidate
or candidates for whom he intends to vote one of these
lists, openly before all the world, and delivers it, folded or
unfolded as the{case may be, to the persons taking the poll.
The tickets are now universally, I believe, printed; and
being printed upon coloured paper—the colour or some dis-
tinguishing device indicating the party to which the candi-
dates belong—the very fact of presenting a paper thus
coloured or marked, though it might be folded up, in itself
at once shows which side the voter takes at the election."
That appeared to be a correct description of the mode of
voting now practised in America, andit entirely agreed with
the information he had always received from American
gentlemen. They never described the ballot as secret voting,
but as a mode of voting by tickets. The distinction between
the ballot and the mode of voting practised in this country
was that here an authentic register of the votes was kept,
but in. America there was no such thing. If a person stood
by the booth he might take a list of those who voted; but
there was no authentic authorised list. In order that he
might not be accused of referring to doubtful or partial wit-
nesses, he would next quote some pamphlets published by
the Society for Promoting a Knowledge of the Working of
the Ballot, of which the hon. gentleman was chairman.
They had published several tracts ; one was called " The
Ballot in America," and showed the mode of voting in ope-
ration there. It stated in reference to the system adopted
in the state of New York: " Where there is, on the one
hand, no register of electors, and on the other band, a sys-
tem of printed tickets, it is perfectly clear that, for some
•
local reason, the inhabitants of the state are not really de-
sirous to secure secrecy in voting either for themselves or
others. This may be called ballot, but it is not secret vot-
ing." That was the description given of the practice in the
state of New York. This might be called the ballot, but it
was certainly not secret voting. The tract ended with this
summary : Ths result generally may be said to be thus;
that while in the various States above named different
forms of ballot are made of, one great principle has been
kept in view, that of securing to every elector the option
of secrecy with regard to his vote. In short, as has been
well expressed by an eminent statesman of our own coun-
try, in none of these States is any record kept against any
man of the manner in which he votes.' In a country
where the suffrage is almost universal, and where great in-
equalities of condition among those who possess it do not
generally prevail, it is not surprising that many should ap-
individually indifferent as to the observance of secrecy
pear
in its exercise. But protection is afforded by law to all
who feel its want, and choose to avail themselves of it.
That description exactly accorded with what was said by Mr
Tremenheare. It showed that the American practice was
this, that" if the voter in America chose to conceal his
vote he had the power of doing so, but that if he did not
think fit to conceal it he might exhibit it, and that, thee a-
fore, secrecy was confined to those who were desirous of
having it. He wished the house-to be in full possession of
that fact, because he thought it was very important with
reference to the practical working of time system. The next
tract to which ho wished to direct attention was No. 5 of
the same series - it was called " The Test of Experience
as to the Working of the Ballot in the United States ;"
and he was the more desirous of quoting it because expe-
rience was that to which he was desirous of appealiug on
that occasion. The Society for Promoting the Introduc-
time of the Ballot became aware that some important trans-
actions in reference to this subject had taken place in the
state of Masaachusetts, and accordingly, in the month of
April, 1855, the honorary secretary of the society, Mr.
Wickham, apdressed a letter to Mr. Walker, who was
then the Secretary of State for Massachusetts, requesting
information with regard to the recent changes of the law
in that state in reference to the ballot. He wished p
erti-
oularly to call the attention of the house to this corre-
spondence, and to the facts disclosed in the letters and
documents sent by Mr. Walker. Mr. Walker decribsd
the state of the law on the subject in Massachusetts. The
ballot was,
it appeared, already in existence there, and
therefore this state already possessed that perfect security
against all electoral evils of which his hon. friend had
given such a glowing description. However, it did not
produce all the results which the friends of the ballot in
this country seemed to think inevitable. It seemed that
it was.deoided by a court of law V3at a printed vste was a
written vote within the meaning of the constitution.
" This decision," Mr. Walker said, " made a great change
in the character of the ballot. It destroyed a great pert
of its secrecy, for as soon as the legality of printed vet
es
was admitted, each of the different parties would have
something in the size and appearance of its tickets by
which it could be readily distinguished from those of other
parties. One, for example, would have tickets printed on
yellowpaper, another on blue, another on pink, &c. Often.
times, moreover, such tickets were ornamented with some
pictorial representation, so that
m an
a m's vote could be re-
cognised almost as far as the an himself. Hence very
soon after printed votes were introduced complaints began
to be heard from all parts of the State, especially from
the large commercial and manufacturing towns, that the
secrecy of the ballot was impaired, that intimidation and
coercion were used at the polls, and the independence
of of the voter reatly lessened." He then waetn
that
to say that "The evil had now become
inso great that
many people felt anxious for a changet
of voting and various improvements sted, but
webl
''''ugtteis let the
the great practical difficulty seemed to e
in ,he
year
house observe, was the state of Massachusetts,t f
1810, when vote by ballot was an established institutionrao.
the State, embodied in the constituti on— h
t otd eg
wpo ulcd
tical difficulty seemed tel be to get ame w
time afford perfect se•
be perfectly secret and at theadded that ' the two
minty against fraud ;" and - • "
incompatible. Therefore
ob-
jects appeared for a long time Walker, the Secretary
it appeared that at that time Mr.
and security' against
of State, thought that secret voting . were at that time
fraud were incompatible, and no means . 'e objects ;
known in the United States of reconciling the.. s Ex.
showing, as it seemed to him (the Chancellor of tn.
chequer) in the most conclusive manner that, according to

the practical view of the United States, secresy was not

an essential part of vote by ballot' Throughoutthe speech
of his hon. friend it was assumed that secrecy was an es-
sential part of vote by ballot. He contrasted voteby ballot
with open voting, and he raid that open voting was a rati-
fication of a treaty between two dishonest men, implying
that ballot was a secret mode of voting by which that ra-
tification was frustrated : and therefore the whole of his
argument fell to the ground, if it was shown that secresy
was not an essential part of vote by ballot. Mr. Walker

proceeded with his narrative. After remarking that the
great difficulty was to find a means of reconciling secresy
of voting with security against fraud, he said —" While
thus thinking upon the subject, it suddenly occurred to
me, for I had never heard it suggested, that the true me-
thod was to enclose the ballot in an envelope, and then,

having sealed the same, place it in the ballot-box." Well,
the result of this sudden inspiration to Mr. Walker, was
that a bill was prepared and presented to the L-gislature,

but the result was that it was rejected, and tlie former
mode of voting was continued. " But," he said, "in the
following year, 1851" it was not a very ancient history
—" the liberals, consisting of the democrats and free-
soilers united, came into power, and a bill for the better
security of the ballot was again introduced into the legisla-
ture, and passed by a handsome majority." Therefore, in
the state of Massachusetts, secret voting was for the first
time established by law in 1851. Mr. Walker sail that
this mode of voting by enclosing the vote in a a sealed er..-
velope cccurred to him forthe first time ; thereby showing
that no similar system existed in any other State.
Mr. H. BERKELEY observed that it existed also in the

State of Michigan.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said Mr.

Walker did not mentio❑ Michigan when he said that the
thing occurred to himself for the first time. He said—
" The law had now passed and remained in force till 1853,"
that was two years. "In 1853 the conservative party
came again into power, and not daring directly to repeal
the ballot law, it virtually destroyed its efficacy by pro-
viding that any voter might use the envelope or not as he
pleased." Let the house observe that this alteration in
the mode of voting took place under the u-e of the scaled.
envelope; and it must therefore be supposed that the elec-
tors of Massachusetts were faithfully represented, and that
the views of the majority were carried into effect in the
repeal of secret voting. Mr. Walker said that this altera-
tion emasculated the law, as every man who voted under
the envelope would be presumed and taken to be hostile to
the dominant party. Then he said that soon after the
virtual repeal of the ballot law, further alterations took
place. The amended constitution was submitted to the
people, containing a cause re-enacting the sealed-envelope
system, but this amendment was rejected by a small ma-
jority,and the people were thrown back again on the existing
law. Be concluded his narrative with this sentence : "A

party was elected, calling itself American ; the legislature
elected by this party is now in session. The restoration
of the Sealed Ballot Law was proposed in the popular
branch, and carried by a good majority, it was, how-

ever, lost in the Senate, the more conservative branch,
by a majority of one vote. So that the law now stands,
that the voter may deposit his vote in a sealed en-
velope, or not, as ho may choose." Tnis history of
the ballot in the state of Massachusetts showed that

pealed,had no and
sines s°
iwerbobnafeanteaecsirendvwt.
rehihaanisewsatr, IHnneotdhdfetruahopitcenmae appearedtfdrsheyth.
the ballot having been at first practically an open ballot,
so that every person who polled was enabled to ex-
hibit his vote if he thought fit to do so, a system of com-
pulsory secrecy was afterwards introduced ; that that eye-
riesiy:Ttsfeeerfhdhmer:oo:
naoeh.sfft
afohtntirheejoeoe:
w,penmrsa,
eopnitp.
ptuosuol
farl bsol
Statei c
compulsory
publications
ivoo
ofnt sti
hni
gel
tern remained in force about two years,, when it was re.
as any n
f
t
American
rameaes
Walker's
krnei
jeenfere wrsneeanxnus
narrative
Union
coin-
mittee of the Senate and the House of Itepresyeritetfoarfotimaves3iorf
Massachusetts, to which his name was appended. The
committee described the evils of voting in the same sort of
way as his hon. friend had described them in speaking of
this country ; they described them as existing in full
vigour under a system of ballot ; and they then went on
to say that the use of a letter envelope which bad within a
few years been introduced into the country bad been sug-
gested as a cheap, an efficacious, and an easy remedy for
all the evils complained of He was afraid of wearying the
house by citing too many passages, but at the same time
he was desirous of placing before them in an authentic
form evidence of the true working of the ballot system in
America. There was nothing to show that there was at
that moment a single State of the American Union in
which a system of compulsory secresy existed in regard to
voting. (Heir.) In the m ejority of the States undoutedly
the system of vote by ballot existed, probably it was to be
found in branches of most of the State constitutions, but
the practice of voting by ballot was this, that the voter
placed a ticket in a box, and there was no poll clerk —no
person to receive or record his vote. There was, there-
fore, no complete list of the votes after the election, the
votes being ascertained by counting the number of tickets
deposited at the polling place ; but on the other hand,
every person was at full liberty to exhibit his vote if he
thought fit, and the generalpractico was, in fact, to exhibit
the votes. Now, in considering what would be the effect of
acceding to the motion of his hon. friend, they must ask
what was the system he recommended. (Hear.) Did he re-
commend the sealed envelope system, or did he recommend
the system of optional secresy ? He adopted the terms used
by the Ballot Society. All his hon. friend's arguments were
founded upon the assumption that the secrecy ought to be
compulsory ; and yet the whole experience of the United
States was against a system of compulsory secresy. It had
only been tried recently as an experiment, so far as he
knew, in a single state, where it remained in operation only
two years, and it had not been re-established since. It was
clear therefore that the test of experience—to use the lan-
guage of the title-page of the tract to which he had referred
—it was clear, he said, that the test of experience in the
United States was against compulsory secresy, and in favour
of optional secresy. Well, now, let them consider what
would be the effect of an attempt to introduce compulsory
secrecy in this country. The whole of their electoral pro-
ceedings were founded on the assumption that the opinions
of the candidate were avowed, and that he had certain sup.
porters among the voters, who came forward to support
him on public grounds. His friends perhaps formed a com-
mittee on his behalf, and they appeared in public as the
advocates of the political opinions which he had espoused.
He put forward addresses declaring his opinions ; he can-
vassed the electors on the ground that he held such opinions;
he hoped that they would support him as entertaining si-
milar opinions. The whole conduct and course of an English
election was publicity of opinion on the part of the candi-
date as well as of the electors. (Hear, hear.) No person in
that house had greater objection to intimidation at elec-
tions than he himself had. He fully sympathised in every-
thing that his hon. friend had said against that practice ;
he objected quite as strongly as he did to the illegitimate
exercise of the influence of landlords and others with the
view of coercing their tenants or their dependents at the
poll, and there was nothing which his hon. friend had said
on that subject to which he did not assent. Buthaving made
that declaration, he must add that he was not prepared to
adopt his hon. riend's remedy, or to admit that it would
in fact be a remedy. (Hear, hear.) His firm conviction was
that if they attempted to introduce a system of compul-
sory secrecy of voting in this country, it would be an at-
tempt to row against an irresistible current, it would be
an' attempt to force upon the people of this country an in-
stitution thoroughly repugnant to their habits and nature.
(Cheers from the opposition side of the house.) He be-
lieved that if his hon. friend, instead of using the ambigu-
ous phrases that he had done, were to bring in a bill dis-
tinctly embodying the sealed envelope system, or a bill
making it compulsory upon every voter to conceal his vote
at an election, he would find that the general feeling of
the country was against him. (Hear.) If there was to be a
compulsory system it must be accompanied with a penalty
for the violation of secrecy ; to that extent they must in-
evitably go. If they visited a man with a penalty for
showing his vote at an election, how could they allow a
candidate to visit the electors and ask them for their
votes? (Hear, hear.) If the election was to be secret—if
it was to be as silent as a funeral—it would be utterly in-
consistent with such a state of things to permit any inter-
course between the candidate and an elector. His hon.
friend had been indulging in general phrases, reading ex-
tracts from newspapers, and so on, without perhaps very
minutely considering' the details of the measure which he
wished the house to adopt. He was inclined to think that
he had never actually faced the system of compulsory sec-
resy, and that what he had in his mind was, in fact, op-
tional secrecy, that is to say a law which would permit
a man who wished for secresy to give his vote without ex-
hibiting it. If he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did
not misinterpret the views which the community enter-
tained on this subject, that was the kind of ballot which
the majority of persons had in their mind, and it was that
which was held to be a panacea for all electoral evil.
Now, supposing a measure for the introduction of the bal-
lot to have been embodied in such a form as be had indi-
cated, namely, that of optional secrecy, or the allowing
persons to conceal their votes if they wished to do
so, he must be permitted to express an opinion that
the great majority of the voters at ehutions were
prepared to avow their votes—(cheers)—that the great
majority were, in fact, desirous of avowing them—(hear,
hear)—that they had strong feelings in favour of one
candidate, and against another ; and that they were not,
as his hon. friend had described many of bis countrymen to
be, mere flocks •f sheep who were driven up to:the poll.
Though many of them might not ba very exalted in station
they nevertheless held very decided political opinions,
which they retained for years, and he thought every gen-
tleman who had been in the habit of canvassing a consti-
tuency would bear testimony to that fact. Well, now, he
thought that if vote by ballot were introduced in an op-
tional form, the result would be that a great majority of
electors would exhibit their votes. The only effect of the
change would bo that those who wished to intimidate or
coerce a voter would give him notice that he would be
watched at the poll, and that if he did not display his vote
it would be assumed that he had voted contrary to their
wish. The only result of such a law as could be practically
worked in this country would be that as regarded pergolas
who were resolved upon intimidation, the mode of intimi-
dation resorted to would be changed, while no effectual pro-
tection would be given to the dependent voter. He would
suppose, what he hoped would never occur again in this
country, that there was a division between different classes
of sooiety in reference to the laws relating to food, and that
on that subject the agricultural interest was arrayed
against the rest of the community. He would suppose that
there was a rural parish in which there was to be found a
blacksmith and a wheelwright who were small freeholders
working for neighbouring farmers, and living by the cus-
tom of those farmers ; and he would suppoee that these
small freeholders were informed by the farmers before an
election that unless they exhibited their votes at the poll-
ing place it would be assumed that they had not voted in a
certain prescribed manner, and that their custom would in
that case be withdrawn. ie what respect would such a law
of optional secrecy afford any protection to a dependent
voter ? It was clear that it would not Weill any protection.
In order to give effectual protection they must do what had
never been done yet in the United S' a' es—they must alter
the whole course and character of their elections, and
tho very habits of the people; they must attempt to do
by legislation what legislation would in fact be powerless
to effect. For these reasons, not because he thought voting
by ballot me-English or unmanly, not because he shared in
any of those popular objections to the ballot which his hon.
friend had treated with so much contempt, but because he
believed that in one form it was utterly impracticable, ir-
reconcileable with the habits of this country, and not re-
commended by experience in those countries which were
hell up as models for imitation, and because he believed
that in the other form it would be found ineffectual for the
object in view--for these reasons he felt bound to oppose
the motion. He thought it was to public opinion--to the
diffusion of sounder views as to the relations between the
electors and those who were able to control their votes--
that they should look for an improvement of the present
system. In support of the view that public opinion tended
to remove the worst evils of a system of intimidation, he
would appeal to the election which had recently taken
place. He did not mean to say that that election was un-
tainted by the vices of intimidation and coercion. With
regard to bribery, he did not believe the ballot would pro-
duce any effect ; with regard to intimidation and coercion,
no doubt if every one could keep his secret, protection
might be afforded. Ide could not anticipate compulsory