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 vulzar 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 goad 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 them. And first, we would cheer them up, shoul I they have beard our conversation with Mr. DISRAELI, and, above all, should they have read the solemn prose 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 iu 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 Co•nmona' j )urnals—" that Mr. BERKELEY is to bring forward his motion f)r the Ballot on Tuesday night." Well, whether we call that the first sentence or net, 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 are raising a cry that adhesion to the principle of the Ballet should be made a sine qua non for any Ministry honoure 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-3 diet pearls, are not to be got in shallow water. Here, at the beginning, we are told that the antagonism of the Billet to liberal principles is profound —(reader, profound antagonism—profound strugglings and wrestling —are not ours ; it is really as they say—sic : or lest that cant expression should be unpleasantly misunderstood—sic in origine ; 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 political influence." The mere vote is as nothing compared with the effect of " honestly declared convictions working through numberless social channels." Deep 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 canvictione if doing so won't starve them—and vote honestly in addition. Next, we " feel profoundly," also, that all the honest men who would lose their own bread, and their wife's bread, and their children's broad by "declaring their convictions" can abstain from doing it, and could, with the la 411(), give at least as [ieu,J.)L T likes figures—we mean arithmetical figures—for to otherfigures he has a " profound antagonism' as he wool 4 say. It seems then to us to stand thus; under the ballot—Liberals have " the influence of honestly& clare I conviction s,"plus honest votes,plus also the honest votes of those who dare not declare their honest convictions. Under public voting they have the influence of honestly declared conviction 4, plus honest votes, but, minus the votes of those who dare not declare their convictions. For the life of us we cannot perceive how the influence of any man's convictions, if the man had either character or arguments to give weight to them, could. be lost under secret voting. Arguments mild 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 ball ht 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 bo generally, and if men are enlightened, always, identical questions. N.)v.-, 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 ariitObracy ; 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 &