The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-04-30 00:00:00

THE LIVERPO

the governor of the province of New York, where the ballot
prevailed, had expressed not long ago in a public document,
which he had addressed to his constituents. The whole subject
of the governor's grievance in that document was the intimida-
tion which had been exercised in favour of the government
candidate, and against himself, who was the provincial or po-
pular candidate. This was his language—" 'I hat many persons
holding offices in the public service of the United States have
acted most improperly, by interfering iu our elections, is known
to every man in the community, who has eyes to see, and who
is not steeled by prejudice against the admission of truth."
The governor then went through the different offices, beginning
with those in the Navy-yard. After enumerating the holders
of different offices, he added, " The documents herewith pro-
duced will show that at the last election officers in the public
employ were brought up to vote, not according to their own
feelings, but according to the feelings of the different chiefs in
their respective departments, and that improper attempts were
made upon all of them, in order to influence the result of the
contest." lie would not tire the house by reading further ex-
tracts, but would confine himself to stating that the governor
of New York concluded by stating a series of facts, proving a
close concert between the officers of the Customs, the Excise,
the Post-office, the Navy-yard, and even of the judicial Bench
operating upon the local election.—(Hear, hear.) They had,
then, the opinion of an able and accomplished man, who was
practically acquainted with the system, that in one of the
United States, where the Ballot was in full work, its effects
were not such as the honourable member represented them in
his argument. The honourable gentleman concluded by stat-
ing, that whilst on the other side of the house he had always
voted against the introduction of the ballot into our elective
system, and now that he was seated on the ministerial benches
he saw no reason for changing his opinion. He shouldcertainly
vote agaiust this motion.
Dr. LUSHINGTON said that no man, however great his elo-
quence and ability, should induce him to believe that if the
system of voting by ballot were made the law of the land, and
if, as a consequence, the voting at elections was secret, the
effect would not be visible in the diminution of that intimida-
, tip's, corruption and bribery, of which every member in the house
complained, and of which all men professed their desire to obtain
a reinedy.—(llear.) If there were any certainty in the motives
of human actions, there was certainty in this, that when a man
parted with his money for any object, he parted with it in pro-
portion to his assurance that the object which he sought to pur-
chase would be attained by the outlay. In proportion, there-
fore,
as the house diminished the certainty of bribery being
successfully exerted, would it diminish the attempts made
to corrupt and influence the constituency of the country.
He (Dr. Lushington) had had to contend at his last election
against the whole weight of the West Indian interest. Now, he
would give the house an instance how the West Indian interest
had conducted their operations. The principals of a large West
Indian house went to a tradesman, with whom they were in the
habit of dealing. They said to him, " Will you give us one
vote for Captain Marryat ?" He replied that he would. The
next question was, Will you give us another against Dr.
Lushington ?" The tradesman replied, that he was ready to
give one vote to please them, because they were his customers,
but said that he must give the other vote to please himself.
" Then," said they, "make out your account immediately,
there is a draught for the balance, but on no account shall you
ever have another order from our house." It so happened that
the tradesman was in independent circumstances. His spirit
was roused by this mixture of insolence and oppression, and
within an hour of the occurrence of this transaction he came
and informed him (Dr. Lushington) of its particulars. (Hear,
hear.) By the late reform bill they had extended the elective
franchise, and by so doing they had rendered the adoption of
the ballot more necessary. (Hear.)
Sir G. PHILIPS declared himself adverse to the system of
secret voting. It had been said that the ballot had been tried
in America; but a friend of his, speaking from observation, had
stated that too much importance was attached to this measure
there. He wished to put all parties on their guard by impress-
ing upon them that the ballot, though it might be employed for
good purposes, might be easily abused for bad.
Major Far:coulee said, that if in the arguments adduced by
hon. gentlemen who had brought thiS question before the house,
or in those urged by hon members in support of the proposed
change, he could discover any proof, however slight, that such
a change would be beneficial to the real interests of the people,
then indeed this measure should have his cordial support; but
from the best consideration he had been enabled to give to it,
he could discover little or no advantage derivable from it. On
the contrary, to him at least it appeared fraught with results fa-
tal to the integrity of the popular character, not less than to the
natural and honourable influence of a liberal social intercourse.
The advantages enjoyed by us under our free constitution were
originated and secured by no selfish or merely temporary views.
No; those advantages had resulted from a generous but no
less prudent spirit of legislation, looking, it was true, to the
interests of each particular period of our progression, but
never losing sight of the ultimate destinies of this constitu-
tional monarchy, as far as they were subject to human wisdom
and control. Animated by this spirit, devotedly attached to
this form of government, because he believed it to be the only
one adapted to the feelings, the habits, and the true interests
of the people of Eugland, he felt bound t o resist this and all
other measures which, to his judgment, appeared levelled at
what he might be allowed to call the interwoven interests of the
people, the aristoctacy, and the crown. Ile, for one, would
never consent to any disseverance of those interests ; and be-
lieving the ballot to have a decided tendency to such disseve-
rance, he should give his vote against this measure.
Lord ALTIIOIIP said that since he had had the honour of a
seat in that house, theme had been one division on this question,
on the motion -of the hon. and learned gentleman opposite
(Mr. O'Connell), in which he had voted for the adoption of
the ballot, and he had since expressed himself in favour of
that mode of taking votes; but he had never stated or urged it
as a sine qua non of good government. (Hear.) Ile had
stated that he was inclined to prefer it, but he did not fail, at
the same time, to see many objections to it, though he still
thought the advantages .preponderated. When the question of
the reform of Parliament was before the house, though there
were some who wished that that measure should have gone a
great deal further, there was a readiness, for the sake of the;
great measure of reform, to abandon the question of the ballot
that was, in fact, the universal feeling of the country. If
this was the ease—if, in the first plaCe,:they, uniting with the
majority of reformers, (for those who espoused the ballot were
not the majority of the reformers)—ir uniting with them they,
obtained the measure of reform, it could not be right and pro-1
per, or just and fair, to turn round and say, " having obtained!
this advantage, we will make use of it iu order to obtain the;
ballot." But there was one ground on which he should not be
justified at present, and in the circumstances of the country, in;
giving his vote in favour of the motion. He never should have
supported the ballot in a reformed Parliament or any other,
unless he saw great practical inconveniences without.it. Ile
did not deny that great practical evils were produced, but those
evils must exist to a great extent, and become a-real public
evil, before he could adopt so great a change in -the constitu-
tion in order to remedy them. lie did not think that under the
present system of reform such evils.existed to any extent, and
therefore not believing them to exist to such an extent as to
influence the public interests, he certainly did not think we
ought to adopt such a change as this. It had been stated by
the hon. member who brought forward this motion, that when
his noble friend introduced the reform bill, he stated that this
was•a question not immediately connected with that measure.,
But he (Lord Althorp) appealed to every gentleman who was
in the last Parliament, and who knew the whole proceedings
whilst the question of reform was going on, whether the pro-
moters of that measure.did not contend that, as far as the re-
presentation of the people was concerned, that measure was
not.considered and proposed as a final measure. (Hear, hear.)
With regard to the speeches on both sides to-night, he thought
some of those who had spoken for the ballot had exaggerated
the evils it was proposed to cure; but he thought those who had
spoken against it had been guilty of more exaggeration. He
did not think that the ballot would destroy the legitimate in-
fluence of property, or that any measure would do so. But still
he did not think it a grand panacea to prevent bribery and cor-
ruption, though it would render them 'more difficult. (Hear.)
He avowed that if thereavere no other reasons, on the whole lie
should prefer this mode of taking votes, but he did not think the
evils were such as to justify the change. He was conscious that
lie was liable to attack. for the vote he should give, but it' he gave
his vote any other way, he should be liable to still greater attack.
Mr. CoeeuTr said he never had been a very strenuous advo-
cate for the ballot. An hon. gentleman had referred to New
York, and 'complained of the interference of-the government;
but he complained of the government of the State of New York,
not of the general government, which was a sort of foreign go-
vernment, not the 'municipal government-of the state. All ho
said about the United States went to nothing at all. The noble
'lord (Ebrington) said that -property had its rights; he (Mr. Cob-
bett) knew it had its rights, and it its.dutics too. Property
had a right to call upon the people to defend it. He never de-
flied the right of a nobleman to defend his estate; but though he
admitted the rights of property, and the claims it had upon us, it
had no-right to our souls; it had no right to command the souls
and consciences of the people; and all that was asked was for the
ballot, to enable the people to exercise their conscience, and to
vote for the candidate they liked best. Talk of preventing bri-
bery! There could be no prevention of bribery without the ballot.
Sir IL 'PEEL'S objection to the system of ballot was, that it

FL STA NDA RD,

would make the constitution of that house more democratic
than it now was. lie thought that at present it was democra-
tic enough (hear, hear) ; and therefore he openly opposed it on
that ground. He thought there was quite infusion enough of
democratic principle in the house for a mixed constitution such
as ours. (Hear.) Let the house see what would be the effect
of destroying the influence of property. If a man of ELMO a
year were to have no more influence than a man of £lO a year,
property would become of little value, and a system of repre-
sentation would be established against which no government
could stand. Another ground of objection was, that after the
experiment of last year, it would be too much to carry. on the
principle of reform so much further without any experience as
to the working of what they had already done. If there was to
be no fixedness in the electoral system, all respect for authority
would be removed. The system of universal suffrage would be
much less objectionable than this. He knew of many ingenious
arguments why women should be allowed to vote. They could
hold property, and were vested with many important trusts, and
could- vote for many public functionaries; but they had not yet
been intrusted with the power of voting for members of parlia-
ment, though the arguments in their favour were as cogent as
most, if not all, of those which he had heard in support of the
ballot. He would ask, had they not last year said that they
were trying a great experiment, and had not the consent of the
country been given on the fair understanding that they were to
go no further until they had some experience of the working of
the experiment they had made ? He was sure the people would
not be satisfied if they found the house night after night dis-
cussing further changes before they saw the effect of that which
they had already made. The public would be much better
pleased with, and the house would do more practical good in
considering, the report of the commissioners on the state of the
poor laws. (Hear, hear.) For these reasons, and thinking
that they had carried their experiment far enough, and believ-
ing that one change would only beget the desire of some greater,
he should oppose this motion. Let it be borne in mind, if ever
there should arise a question on which a delusion might exist
in the public mind,—and it often happened that the public mind
was wrong on important questions for many months, before inure
cool and calm deliberation dissipated the illusion ;—but if, dur-
ing the period of such delusion, a general election should take
place, might they not have a parliament, not representing the
deliberate opinion of the country, but the delusion under which
it had laboured? (Hear, hear.) And might not such a parlia-
ment work irretrievable mischief to the country ? On these
grounds he would oppose this motion, and he hoped that re-
formers and anti-reformers would join in not consenting to alter
the constitution until they had proof of its tried inefficacy.
(Hear' hear.)
Mr. C. BERKELEY supported the motion. He had known
an instance where 45 electors in one county had been induced
to vote against their consciences. Until the law of ballot was
the law of the land, we should have no true representation.
Mr. GUOTE briefly replied.
The house divided :
Noes 2ll
Ayes lO6