The Sun.
London, England, 1857-07-09 00:00:00

THE BALLOT.

Mr. Henry Berkeley's speech on the ballot
leaves us nothing to desire in the way of argu-
ment, a happy use of examples and humorous
illustrations. He has made many good speeches
on the subject, but never a better than the last.
We wish that: the task of opposing the motion
had devolved on some other than Lord John
Russell, whom it is not p!easnt to sea placed
in the front of 'a battle fir the,loul influences.

sounds strange and unnatural to hear from

his lips the arguments—which used to be urged
ad nauseam, against his own motions of old for
Parliamentary Reform:" "It works well," was the
favourite plea of the old Tories, for the system
swept away by the Reform Bill, " the country has
grown to its greatness under it, and the liberties
of the people have inade•advances." But in those
days Lord John Rfiseell would not cmisent to let

ill alone on the pretend() that it was letting well
alone, and he was char sighted ecough to see
that the country got on, not hecaus3 of the rotten-
ness in its representative system, but notwithstand-
ing it, and he resolutely and boldly removed the
impediment to its better progress. Yet now we
find him adopting and turning against the Ballot
all the hackneyed pleas which he so ahly.confuted
when they were put forth in defence of sham re-
presentation. We seem almost to Lear the voice of
Croker again in these words delivered by Lord
John Russell :

under which we
have agpapienaerds, corrupt p
liberty,
bme
rotdye, ofan
dv voting,
thei
We have gone on a long time withthsiyssitmemperofefots,eacnredt,
as i t
voting hasonly been proposed, or even thought of, Within
late years. Liberty has made greater advances in this
country than in any nation of Europe, and I ventura to
say that that there is more freedom in this country than
exists even in the United States of America.

against Catholic
ThTehissaima
ethaergstnenareeontyt pweda:idieifeeldnce of every abuse.
emancipation, against the repeal of the coin-laws,
against every beneficent change of cur time. When
a service all his own, and resolutely performed in
Sir Robert Peel established the metropolitan police,
spite of much misrepresentation and clamour, he
was told that the public had been sufficiently well
protected under the infirm old night watch, and
that no change was needed or called for. And it
asso at nfoigrhnt;
to
was true, undeniably, that London had grown and
thriven,withstan
dinincrgetTedinianeewneraitlythnfataila population, not-
but Sir Robert Peel thought this factsntroereet
u
strengthening the protection of personand property,
and he di dg
esnonarcacloarnid accordingly. .0
fHa
safety, edtidnot say, here is a
sufficient
but he took such
measures as made every inhabitant of the metropo-
lis feel a degree of security that hs had
never en-
joyed before. Analogous to this is the case for the
protection of voters. No 'one asserts that all
electors are subjected to the foul influences, but,
on the other hand, it is unquestionable that a
very considerable number are in that unhappy
condition, and for them the only protection that
can be afforded is claimed. It is not enough for
Lord John Russell to deny that a 9 much intitaida-
tion prevails as to render it impossible to ascertain
the opinions of the enfranchised daises. Mr. Henry
Berkeley justly contends that the legislature is
bound to afford protection where it imposes duties,
the upright discharge of which may be resented by
those whose wishes, it . disappoints, no matter
whether a brutal mob, as at Kidderminster, or a
dictatorial landlord, as upon the Waterford estate,
in Ireland. -- But then comes the stale fallacy that
the suffrage is confided in trust, and must be kept
under the view and control of public opinion.
First, it is to observed that the individual vote
never is under the view and control of public opi-
nion. Public opinion does not occupy itself about
John Thompson's vote at an election. Nor, if it did
take cognisance of John Thompson's vote, could it
form any judgment whether it was an honest or
c^rrupt vote, for the heart of John Thompson
cannot be searched, nor his motives scanned.
John Thompson's vote is watched only by those
whose passions or sinister interests are concerned
to sway or to resent it. To see how the man acts
would be all very well, if in the process his action
was not liable to misdirection. The publicity
mplished it is
corruptor,
•anndly slevrhveens_
ttblioeir.. imn,ntirmkidisatoraccoer,
ita on
notice the a t cu
impossible for the general public to form a
judgment
if it could oc-
cupy "aplla whichtilar it case,
does ncpt,
,and can-
not. The whole sum and substance of this, like
every other argument against the ballot, is that the
elector is not to elect, but that somebody else, land-
lord,r
patron, customer, or mob; is to sway his suf-
frage. Secrete voting is the crypt where con-
science recovers freedom and power. Illicit pro-
mises are there annulled and duty holds its course.
Yet Lord John Russell professes surprise at the
doctrine that morality is served by the breach of
illicit engagements :'
- -

to My
that promise.
My hon. fliend states that he has a high moral au-
thority for saying that a voter may well give his promise
troulaes coafnadivdeartye,
soundand ymetorabeliatyt,liert Y, according to the
I suppose I must accept that as sound morality. It may
be so, but I can only say that it is strange and new to
me.

more in the breach than in the observance ?" Can
Aro there, then, no promises "to be honoured
any voluntary engagement set aside an obligation
of duty ? If a man promise to tell a falsehood, is
he bound in honour and conscience to the lie ? Can
any one at will divest himself of a public duty ? Is
an engagement with a corrupter or tyrantsuperior