The Sun.
London, England, 1842-06-22 00:00:00

supported by facts; a petition he had that day presented
from the householders of St. James's, in which it was stated
that the Ballot was adopted in their parochial matters, and that
it both secured secresy and prevented intimidation. De
Tocqueville also affirmed that the Ballot was the great protec-
tion of the electors of France against undue influence. Under
the present system a man was inclined to resent a vote
given against him as a wrong, but he did not think he would
act thus on a mere surmise. It would also check the in-
flu, nee of inferior agents over the proprietors of land, who fre-
quently incited their principals to vengeance. The influence
of property was one thing, but the despotism of property was
another.—(Cheers.) He did not think that the fair influence
of property would be 6:imiLished by the Ballot. A good land-
lord would still retain it. But it was for them to consider,
whether the influence of property might not be ultimately car-
ri. d to excess, by which that influence would be endangered.
Bef.ie the Relorm bill was introduced, the system of
nomination was carried to a monstrous excess, and
an oligarchical interest had arisen in the State. Since
the passing of the Helium Bill, borough after borough
had !alien into the hands of a few individuals.; and it would
seem as it before long "a close county," would become a fa-
milt, r phrase. It. was said, however, that immorality would 1
lie tneourageci by a system of clandestine voting—that j
simulation and falsehood would he its inevitable results—that
men would make promises without any intention to fulfil them
—end that distrust and jealousy would usurp the place of con-
fiderice and good faith. Now it was his conviction that pro-
, mires given from a man's free volition would he always gene-
rally observed, and that nu reliance should be placed upon pro-
mises wrung from terror or won by corruption. lie found in
the speech of Demosthenes, on the " False Embassy," a pas-
, sege so strikingly in point that he could not refrain from reading
it to the House, although he was aware that but little value
wan generally set on the opinions of men who flourished in
ante, nt times. In the si.eech in questiern, Demosthenes, after
stating that the vote was to be by Ballot, in addressing an as-
sembly of 500 judges, proceeded to say—" If any of you, be-
fore you have entered this assembly, has had the misfortune to
enter into a promise to vote against your conscience and
against, your country, bear in mind that that pro-
mise is void; those with whom you have entered into
that culpable engagement e ill not know whether you fulfilled
it er not, hut there is a Divinity above that has cognizance of
all your faults, that will know whether you have fulfilled that
duty to your country which is paramount to every other obli-
gation. Your vote is secret, and by the wisest law that Solon
ever passed, immunity is secured to you."—( Hear, hear. )
There was a truth and force in that sentiment applicable to
every country where tree institutions existed. A dishonourable
contract was a void one, and the performance of a trust ought to
be attended with safety. T 1 e franchise was not a trust for an
individual, it was a trust for one's country ; and parties should
be uncontrolled in its performance. He admitted that there
were evils connected with the Ballet, but he believed that they
were more than out-weighed by those incidental to the present
system. He was free to confess that if the franchise were ex-
ercised with perfect freedom, he, for one, should wish to pre-
serve that system of voting which was congenial to the ancient
habits of the people of England. He admitted that an honest
voter, openly, and in the face of day, recording his conscien-
tious opinion, presented a noble spectacle ; but let them turn
their eyes for a moment from the eentemplation of such an
object to the scenes whir h took place in his (Aar. Shiers)
oen wretched country. Let them turn from " the Cumber-
land statesman," whose spirit was as free as the air which he
brew hes—( Hear, hear)—to the 101. freeholder, who had the
misfortune to pass the Registration Court, and who had received
a summons from his landlord to attend at the hustings. Let
them suppose a contest between a Whig and a Tory ; on the
one side were the poor man's feelings—and he had his feel-
ings like themselves—on the one side were all his national
predilections, all his religious emotions, all his personal at-
tachments, all his affections—perhaps on the one side he saw
a man whom he was accustomed to regard as the deliverer of
his country, while his heart beat, and his eye grew dim, as he
beheld him ; but, on the other side, he saw the champion of
that fierce ascendancy by which there. was a time when his
country was trampled under foot, which vilified his religion,
which covered his altars with opprobriem, which looked with
contempt upon all that he revered; but it was for the latter
he was called upon to vote—( Hear, hear)—it was for
him he was called upon to give his false, his miser-
able, extorted suffrage. Trembling, cowardly, shrinking,
scarcely able to sustain himself, he mounted the hust-
ings as if it were a scaffold, and with a voice almost
inarticulate with emotion, when asked for whom he would
vote, uttered trot the name of the man whom he re-
spected, whom lie loved, but that of the man whom he loathed,
detested, and ebliorred—( Hear, hear)—or, perhaps, under the
influence of emotions half heroical, and half religious, he re-
volted !roles the tyranny that was sought to be rivetted upon
hint; perhaps he did vote in conformity with the dictates of
his c onscience, and with what, under the influence of a gener-
ous delusion, he regarded as the ordinance of his religion. The
poor wretch ! before a month had gone by, all he had on earth
was seized. The horse with which he ploughed, the beast
which gave him milk, the bed upon which he reposed, were no
lotiger his ; he went foith with Providence for his guide, and
God for his avenger. Was that a system which they were
prepared to maintain? For that system no man who had come
forward to oppose the Ballot had proposed a remedy. But the
Ballot was, forsooth, an immoral process, and an un-English
proceeding !—( Hear, hear.) He understood the force of that
latter phrase; he knew the noble attributes of the people of
this country. Fraud was, indeed, un-English ; duplicity and
double-dealing were un-English. But bribery, too, was not
English ; cowering fear upon the one side, and brutal tyranny
upon the other, were un-English. And ye t these were the un-
English consequences of the present system—consequences to
which he called upon them to apply a remedy in the narhe of 1
justice and humanity—in the name of every high and honour-
able consideration.—( Hear, hear.) They were told that they
might leave the correction of the abuses of the present system
to public opinion. But the power of public opinion had not
arrested bribery, and still less, he believed, could it arrest in-
timidation. There were many who condemned bribery, and
who yet considered coercion as a subject of self-congratulation ;
there were landlords—great patricians—who openly proclaimed
that " a marl had a right to do what he pleased with his own,"
and who boldly advocated the doctrine of coercion. Now, while
such language was held, he thought that public opinion
could afford but a very inadequate remedy for existing evils ;
mud if that were so, he entreated them in the r.ame of the high
honour and renown of this country—he entreated them in the
name of every motive national and individual, to pause before
they rejected the means, the only means by which the spirit
of epertion wrought into the present system could be re-
strained— the only means by which all the suffering and all the
misery that followed from a general election could he arrested
—the means without which there was not a glimpse of hope
that, to a state of things the most calamitous and degrading,
any palliation could be applied.-_( Cheers. )
• -fir J. GRAHAM said, that the Right Hon. Gentleman
who had just sat down had observed at the commencement
of his speech, and with very great truth, that the present
subject was one to which even genius and eloquence like
his own could not add anything like freshness of argument.
And certainly he ( Sir J. Graham) should say that the Right
Hun. Gentli man seemed to have implicitly relied upon the
shortness of the memory of thews, gentlemen who had been
Members of former Parliaments, and upon the absence of
curiosity on the part of new Members, who he appeared to
think must have abstained from all reference to that n:ost
useful repository of former debates, he alluded to " Han-
sard ," for he should say, without meaning any offence to the •
Right Honourable Gentlemen, that everything in his splen-
did declamation was to be found, almost without excep-
' lion, exactly in the order in which he had stated both his
facts and his arguments that evening, in the speech which
he bad delivered on the same question in the year 1839
the last occasion on which the matter was under. discus-
sion in that House. The Right Honourable Gentleman
had said that he thought the question was to be treated histo-
rically, and that it was of vast importance to refer to what had
taken place previous to the introduction of the Reform Act,
by the Noble Lord the 'Member for London. He believed that
the Night Hon. Gentleman was not correct in stating that the
Coin a ittee of Lord Grey's Government to whom the pt eparat ion
of tie. Reform Bill was entrusted consisted of five persons. He
(Sir .1. Graham) thought it consisted of only four persons,
namely, the late Lord Durham, Lord Duncannon, the Noble
Lord %shorn he saw opposite (Lord J. Russell), and himself (Sir
J. Graham). He could not refer explicitly to what had oc-
cut red on that occasion. He had already stated, in the year
1839, that the Noble Lerd, the Member for London, declared
that he had received the permission of his late Majesty to make
a full disclosure of the secret coursels which had pre-
ceded the introduction of the Reform Bill.—[Lord J. Russell
here made an observation, which was inaudible in the gallery.]
Put he ( Sir J. Graham) stated then, and he repeated now,
that lie had received no such permission, and he was therefore
obbged to speak with considerable reserve. 'flue Noble Lord
would, however, correct him if he should fall into any error.
He should first observe that the measure prepared by the Com-
mittee appointed by Lord Grey's cabinet, was not brought for-
ward by them as a measure to which they were individually
pledged; or to which they meant finally to adhere ; but they had
formed a scheme to be afterwards considered by their colleagues
in the Cabinet. He might be allowed to state in passing
that upon no occasion had he voted in favour of the Ballot.
Lord Althorp, previous to the passing of the Reform Act, had
supported it ; but he (Sir J. Graham) had differed from him,
and had voted against the measure. Now, observe what was
the course taken by Lord Althorp upon the sub-
ject atter the passing of the Reform Act. In
the me nth of April, 1833, Mr. Grote had brought forward
! his motion in favour of the Ballot. Lord Althorp upon that
1 occasion said, " he appealed to every gentleman who had been
in the last Parliament, and who knew the whole proceedings,
while the Reform Act was going on, whether the pro-
, moters of that mea- ore did not consider that so far
as the representation of the people was concerned it
was to be looked uron as a final measure." There had
been some dispute as to the word finality, but that was
the designation given by Lord Althorp himself, because
that Noble Lord had stated that the Government proposed the
measure as a final one. He concurred in the opinion of the
Noble Lord, and as far as he was concerned in Lord Grey's
Cabinet, the Reform Act was a final measure.'With respect to the
opinions of the Noble Lord the Member for London, he con-
curred with all that had been stated ; and with respect to the
course pursued by Lord Grey's Government the Noble Lord
was as much connected with it as himself. If he believed the
Ballot was likely to be a barrier to ulterior changes he would
support it ; but be agreed with the 'Noble Lord the Member
fur London that it would lead to as great changes as the Char-
tists desired.—( Hear, hear.) Ile concurred with the Noble
Lord that if the Ballot were granted the next step would be
Universal Suffrage. That was a proof that the 501. tenants
could exercise their franchise fairly, notwithstanding they were
opposed to their landlords. He was of opinion, with the Hon.
Member for the county of Middlesex, that secret voting was
against the English character. The only party to whom the
Ballot was available was the juggling hypocritical coward.—
( Hear, hear.) It was inconsistent with the manners, feeling,
and character of Englishmen or their institutions.—( Hear. )
If they ever entertained the question of the Ballot Universal
SO) age must follow as a necessary consequence.—(Hear.)
Until it was his misfortune to despair of the present state of
things he would not support the Ballot, and he trusted that the
motion would be rejected by a large majority.
Mr. Sergeant MURPHY believed that the people of Eng-
land had been bound hard and foot by the aristocracy because
they had not the Vote by Ballot.—( Bear.) If the Ballot was
bad in principle why had it been recommended by the Right
Hon. Baronet opposite ?—( Hear, hear.) For hit own part he
believed that the Begot was the only just mode of voting.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM denied that he had been pledged
to the Ballot at any time. It was true that the subject had
come under dismosion in Lord Grey's Government, but by ar-
rangement every Member of that Government was allowed to
follow his own opinions.
Mr. O'CONNELL denounced such an arrangement as
dirty, cowardly, arid paltry conduct.—( Hear. ) He believed
that the Ballot was the only just mode of taking the opinion
of voters, and he should, therefore., give it his support. He
read fur them, the other evening, during the discussion on the
Isleweastle. under-Lyme election, an instance of a father, who,
with the knowledge that his son had accepted a bribe, had at-
tended with him at the hustings, and seen him take the bribery
oath ; and when asked how he could have allowed his son to
perjure himself, his real y was, "he had seen many others do
it." There was their system for them! In the ease of the
Sudbury Election Committee, a witness stated that a contested
election did more injury to public morals in that tlace than all
the preaching of the ministers of the Gospel could counteract.
Various devices had been resorted to escape
the oath. Some had recommended that
.by
the obligation
the
legtvzienaru,?
word " not" they would swear the truth.
consciences
had
not even taken that trouble to solace
bib% co omitted
tstirraiithroustion:arlidorperjury.Al. That. was the Eggs