The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-02-20 00:00:00

THE BALLOT.

Mr. GhoTE rose to move, ",that leave be given to bring in a
bill for taking the votes of Parliamentary electors by way of
ballot." lie did not venture to imagine that he could bring
much new argument to a discussion of the subject ; but experi-
ence was a severe precept►ess, and he hoped that members
fresh from the recent elections would approach the examination
of the subject with minds more candid and unprejudiced than
heretofore. It could not be denied that bribery and intimida-
"" were serious evils; that they infected every vein and artery
of..the elective system; and that the existing securities against
them were impotent and contemptible. A remedy was needed;
and what second remedy, what other measure *of any promise
or efficiency, had ever been proposed by those whose aversion
to the ballot was ❑lost unconquerable ? Since Lord John Rus-
sell's speech on the first day of the session, it had become com-
mon to couple the ballot with other measures of reform; but he
proposed the ballot simply and separately—not because he was
insensible of the advantages of au extended suffrage and short
parliaments, but because O would of itself remedy the grossest
abuses of the electoral system, and because it could be suppoit-
eil by arguments belonging to itself separately and especially,
For three years the evidence taken before the bribery and inti-
midation committee had been on the table of the house; and
this important body of testimony was not left to stand alone.
For example, the resolutions of the gentlemen who commenced
the Spottiswoode subscription declared, that freedom of election
was entirely subverted in Ireland by intimidation. The speeches
of Mr. Taylor, who proposed the Tory candidate at Birmitig-
b im, of Sir George Clerk at Edinburgh, Lord Palmerston at
Tiverton, Lord Milton at Doncaster, and the charges of milli-
midatiou in tory newspapers against the great whig landlords,
all proved that the complaints of illegal interfere nee with the
freedinn of election were not confined to one party, but were
made by tories and Whigs as wed as radicals.
Mr. Waite, rose to second the motinu. lie was awase of the
difficulty of adding any new argument to those adduced by Mr.
Grote, who had so completely mastered and almost exhausted
the subject; and he.should abstain from any remarks which had
not a beating on the practical part of the question. lie cadet!
upon Sir Robert Peel not to shelter himself under the silence he
observed under the two last discuasions of the question. It was
admitted toy his own supporters that gross abuses existed ; and
Sir Robert was bound to adopt the ballot or propose another re-
medy for them. At present the franchise was a curse even to
the fanners, who gained it through the exertions of their friend
Lord Chandos. It was a fatal hooc to the honest inan who
differed in opinion from his landlord. The votes of the ten-
nants were in all cases looked upon as the chattels of the land-
lords; and they were expected to veer round when their land-
lords changed He then adverted to Lord Jolla Russell's de-
claration against the ballot, as having strongly incieased the
public feeling of its necessity, and reminded the house of the
soeeehes arid votes i❑ its favour, which had been made both by
ministers belonging to the cabinet, as Sir John Dobhouse and
Mr. P. Thomson, and by ministers not of the cabinet, as Sir
Hussey Vivian and Sir Henry Parnell. From these gentle-
men, and others who had expressed their opinions, the people
expected a plain answer on this question, ay or no; and if a
government opposition to it should be attempted, he must tell
the ministers that from that moment anew combination of parties
must arise.

Si► SIDNEY HERBKRT very ably answered the speeches of
th- mover and seconder. They had shown that a remedy was
wanted, but not that theirs was a remedy which would succeed.
He would even give to them, iu addition to their own instances,
these of the Irish .priesthood, and of the clubs Or unions; but
still there was no proof in favour of the remedy proposed..
Intinnithtion would not be diminished; and, as to bribery, it
would be positively increased, because, as there would be no
pay unless the corrupter were returned, very many would
willingly invest their money in a seat who would have declined
to spend the srme sum upon an uncertainty. Gentlemen might
deride the notion that England was entitled to take a Ligber
tone of morality than other countries, and to repudiate, as lead-
ing to meanness and falsehood, a mode of election which other
countries had already adopted ; but if we had not a ri,ht to ex-
pect a hi:4her tone here than is found among 'biller states, our
free institutions and religious education bad been lamentably
thrown away. There was a trust in € ach elector to -lie faith-
fuily diseh trged; it the vote were a. mere. prwperty, unarcoin-
flamed with trust, the voter would nave a rig-tit to sell it. The
policy is to combine duty with interest,. but the ell ict of the
ballot is to create a regular systetu fur the violation of duty by
perpetual falsehood.
Mr. CAVRNDISH, who opposed the ballot expressed his hope
that ministers would propose some other remedy for the existing
evils.

Lord SANnON would be very desirous of co-operating with
her Majesty's government in any wise measure for the purpose
of diminishing the existing amount of corruption and intimida-
tion. The real question, however, at present was whether the
remedy now proposed was not likley to produce a greater evil,
hon. gentlemen on the other side seemed to consider that the
whole essence of a man's political life and conduct was con-
tained in his vote, and that by concealing his vote he might
conceal his political character. Had the ballot had that effect
in the countries in which it had been tried—in France and
America for instance? As to Greece and Rome, those examples
belonged to times too remote. We know little about them; yet,
as far as we could ascertain, it was apparent that in those states,
with secret voting. corruption and tumultuousness increased.
He' would ask, had the vote by ballot put an end to intimida-
tion or produced secrecy in America ? He believed those Ame-
rican states which had not adopted secret voting, were as proud
of their open voting, and had as much horror of secret voting
as we had. lie said that neither in America nor in France had
the ballot been successful in producing secrecy ; for in the for-
mer, Presideot Jackson, four or five years ago, complained in
his message to congress 'of the riorruptiou practised by the.
United States hank, which openly awaved the electors; and in
France it was notorious that the government exercised an ex-
tensive 'influence upon the elections. Now he wool/ ask were
intimiilation and corruption in alt cases reeotted to for the totl'.
pos of punishing or rewarding a man after he had given his
vote? Look at the Roxhurghshire election, and see the treat-
ment which voters received who had not given their votes.
Those men were subjected to violence, because their opinions
were known, and, he would ask, would not mews opinions be
known before going up to the ballmiug boa, as well as before
giving their open votes ? At the time of the discussion on the
Reform Bill, gentlemen at his side of the house were taunted
because they were supposed to consider the franchise as a pro-
petty, and not a trust. Now Ire contended, in opposition to
the gentlemen on the other side, that it was a trust, end that
every man had a right to know how his neighbour exercised
that trust. Had they not themselves supported this view by
their conduct at the last election at Wiiiverharnplon, at Liver-
pool, and other places, where they called upon the non-electors
to watch over the exercise of that trust. He hoped that we
should have a better remedy than the ballot for intimidation.
lie hoped we should have a moral remedy ; and he thought he
saw strong symptoms of it amongst those who exercised the
influence which they possessed with so much delivacv—(cheers
and laughter from the ministerial side). Gentlemen opposite
thought that " we"—whoever " we" were—ought to be always
in a majority, and that when they were left in a minority at
their elections, it must he owing to some undue influence. He
believed there was a general and growing feeling in the country
not to interfere ui h th't exercise of the franchise with anV de-
gree of rudeness or roughness. lie believed also that we might
extinguish corruption if, in regard to boroughs, tie did not pro-
ceed to disfranchise whole communities ; but, by visiting the
penalty silkily on the individual offender, raised a moral stan-
dard which would be a defence against the prevalence of the
practice.
Lord J. Russßct. said the evil, though serious had been much
exaggerated. If the people hail submitted to such wholesale
intimidation as Mr. Grote apprehended, the inference would he,
that the spirit of litreitY was e%tiriet in such a nation, and that
no mechanical device would restore it. The admission that under
the ballot deceit was inevitable, sod the accinnpanaing attempt
to justify that deceit, gave him a st roma repw,nance to the pro-
posal. He thought electors, like members and like ministers,
should exercise their functions under the public eve: and he
was glad that those who denied lire iranehise to Ge a trust had
nut alarmed the country by set tiog up that doctrine at the time
of the reform bill. when the right of voting was taken away, from
no mans- boroughs upon tire vet' ground that the franthise was
not a property in the individual, but a tryst for the public. The
concession of the ballot would lead to further changes. The non-
electors. when they should find themseiyes excluded from the
view of who the electors were doing at the poll, weuld insist on
the extension of the franchise to themselves.

At the close of Load John's speech. confussion and noise
reigned paramount fitr a time. Several members attempted to
address the house. but the speaker was unable to procure a hear-
ing, for them. In the course of the disorder, Mr. E. Rice, Mr.
Hall, Lord Worstey, Captain Pechell. and Mr. W. O. Stanley
were understood to speak in favour of the motion; and Mr.
Slaney opposed it.
Sir ROBERT PEEL rose, and order was restored. Ile said that
the'reason why he had not spoken recently on this question was.
that he had not changed the opinions he hail expressed !al th,ee
several occasions since 1810, and that he was averse to gain„
over the old beaten ground. He certainly shoula not, however,
dec'ine the contest invited by Mr. Ward. And, in opposition
to that gentleman, he at once plunged ieto ao argument to prove
that the franchise was a trust as 'well as a tight; t bat the two
were not incompatible; and that, because the voter was a trus-
tee for the public, he ought not to be allowed to vote in secret.
He naainrained that the secrecy in the performance of a ditty
was opposed to the habits and 14elings of Englishmen—" You
are trying to engraft the principle of secret voting, upon a coun-
try all of whose institutions are founded upon the principle of
free discussion and publicity.. You are trying to introduce
amongst a people, whose manners, and habits, and feelings are,
and have been, alien !mit, a system of concealment and secrecy;
and it is because I am fully convinced that this system of secret
venting is revolting to the fixed habits, institutions, and feelings
of the people, that I mainly object to the proposition of the
honourable member for London. I do not deny that some evil
exists in the present system ; hut, at the same time. I belie% e
that those evils have been grossly exaggerated. In the midst
of great excitement, and at a public election, where there is a
peculiar latitude for freedom of speech, where every appeal is
encouraged by the hosti!i, parties to the feelinls and interests of
the voters,violent expressions are Made use of, andth resits of future
vengeance are dealtoitt,wbieh are never intended to be carried
into actual execution. I do believe that instances in whieli occupy-
ing tenants have actualtyliepri'deprivell of their holdings on ac-
count of their votes being adverse to their landlords are very rare.
I donut at all vindicate the execution of such a threat ; but I be-
lieve the occasions are comparatively rare of its being enforced.
The right lion. baronet the proceeded to show the probability
Of future, first as the mechanical arrangement, and secondly as

to the political and moral effect ; and he quoted a sentence from
Pliny, very graphically descriptive of the wretched voter by
lmtaot —Poposcit tabellax, stylum accepit, caput condidit, neminem
neretur —se condemnat. lie showed that the measure had failed
iu otner countries; and he warned the house that as the ballot
was an encroachment on the charter of the reform bill, so in
three or four years other proposals would anise to encroach
upou the concession of the ballot.

After some further discussion, the house divided—
For the Ballot
Agaiust it

Majority
The farther considerati.n of the report of the controverted
elections bill was po.stponed till the 7th of March.
The exchequer Mils bill, and the transfer of aids bill, went
through committee, and were ordered to be reported to-day.
The House adjourned at half past one o'clock.