The Sun. — 1858-06-07 (London, England)

DERBY—are convinced. We have asked your votes for the ballot before, because come it must, and you might as well carry it and get the credit of it as any one else. But, thanks to Mr. WILSON lately—that is, since he left vulgar Radicalism, enjoying 2,5001. at the Treasury, and now, we believe, by virtue of a few days over six years' service, enjoying a pension— thanks to him, you are now sure, mathematically sure, of making by the ballot a whole nation of Tories ! If you fail to vote for the ballot, therefore, to-morrow, we shall hold you for political suicides. Now, here you must stop—your time is precious—and the rest of our remarks are merely a little special pleading with the hoodwinked Radicals, to persuade them, nevertheless, to lend you their aid in making Tories of the people. We now, therefore, speak to all good Radicals, and to all good Liberals, too, who dislike the name Radical—for, in truth, it does not befit the Brahmin caste—but yet are sound at heart, and such Liberals there are ; we want a word with thee And first, we would cheer them up, they mace heard our conversation with Mr. DISRAELI, and, above all, should they have read the solemn prosy of our Economical Contemporary. We may assure them, if they need assuring, that it is all solemn—bosh—that is all. What it means leaks out in the second sentence—or shall we call it the first sentence— since only a short statement precedes—one we believe to be as true as any of the prophecies in the House of Commons' journals—" that Mr. BERKELEY is to bring forward his motion for the Ballot on Tuesday night." Well, whether we call that the first sentence or not, we like it well --the next is at least the first sentence of bosh, or introductory to bosh, for there is some truth in it ; this is it —" We see that many of our Liberal contemporaries aro raising a cry that adhesien to the principle of the Ballot should be made a sine qua non for any Ministry honoured with the confidence of the Liberal party." We wish the Economist were more economical of words. He might then have found time and room to say " Ministry which shall be honoured," for woefully does the editor rue the fact that no Ministry is just now honoured with that confidence. Well—we are sorry for it—but we must now ask our readers to strip—and to prepare for a plunge Pearls, especially anti-Ballot pearls, are not to be got in shallow water. Here, at the beginning, we are told that the antagonism of the Ballet to liberal principles is profound—(reader, profound antagonism—profound strugglings and wrestlings —are not ours ; it Is really as they say—sic or lest that cant expression should be unpleasantly ,eisunderstood—sic in. origins ; and at the end, too, the editor is still in the deeps—dealing' with "evils which lie deeper than the great evils the Ballot is intended to remedy." Our readers will believe that the evils then are deep enough ; we tremble for the divers—but let us see.  The first of these deep-sea antagonisms to liberalism is this—That "the Ballot attempts to guard the elector's political freedom, at . the sacrifice of almost all the elector's politic tl influence." The mere vote is as nothing compared with the effect of " honestly declared convictions working through numberless social channels." Diop indeed yet we, that cannot yet dive so deep, can see no antagonism between " honestly declared convictions" and a " secret vote." " We feel most profoundly," as he of the Economist says, that is, as profoundly as we shallow-water folks can do, that all the honest men can now honestly declare their convictions if doing so won't starve them—and vote honestly in addition. Nex, we " feel profoundly," also, that all the honest men who would lose their own bread, and their wife's bread, and their childreu's bread by "declaring their convictions" can abstain from doing it, and con' 1, with the ballot, give at least an honest vote. The Economist likes figures—we mean arithmetical figures—for to otherfigures he has a " profound antagonism" as he won' I say. It seems then to us to stand thus; under the ballot—Liberals have " the influence of "neatly & ehro 3 con victions,"p!us honest votes,plus :also tileirtho bonliposatecsotnvvoictiejs of those cnl9.un who dare derpublic not d!a votiugetchei; ;lave the infi teuee of honestly declared conviction=, plus ineuctvliiceti ovnast.e s oFfo rthose honestovto dt ahruettheir who dare life of us we cannot perceive how the influence of Lily man's convictions, if the man had either character lusteter uorndr secretaregumentsto give weight to them, could be voting. Arguments could not be affected by it. Character would need nothing but the assertion of intention to vote for this man or that. Indeed, it would not need so much, since character includes consistency. The deepest argument of all is, of course, that  under the ballet we shall all be Tories, that we shall "do what we will with our own," that we shall regard the votes as our own, that we shall no longer give them patriotically, at the bidding that is of those Patriots—the landlord, the banker, the mortgagee, the customer, and the creditor, or at the bidding of the patriotic distributor of five-pound notes—these last patriots always wishing for a poll-book receipt for their votes. Well—and why should not we give them, as each man thinks they will be for his own good No can• didate can offer us, under the ballot, any personal advantage but what must reach us through public measures—measures, therefore, which will benefit the majority with us. What public measures will benefit me, and what public measures will benefit the nation must be generally, and if men are enlightened, always, identical questions. Now, electors are required to vote for the advantage of their masters or their purchasers, who of course are patriots.  We must beg, however, to be excused from any further descent into the profundities of the Economist. We only fear that both Tories and Whigs of the RUSSELL and PALMERSTON school have a profound conviction, or an interest, or an intuition, or something, that tells them to beware of the ballot—as they wish to keep office, place, and power for the aristocracy ; as they would enjoy jobbing and patronage unmolested ; and as they would perpetuate the monopolies of their order in Church and State. When the Economist has converted one staunch Whig or Tory to his own belief, we could almost pledge ourselves to adopt his faith.  L A