§ Mr. Poultersaid, that, in rising to move for leave to bring in a Bill to protect the free exercise of the franchise, he did so with an intention to propose, that it should be referred to the consideration of a Select Committee. On the principle involved, it was necessary that the Legislature should come to some determination, and the reference of the Bill to a Committee would, he thought, be the best mode of arriving at a satisfactory conclusion on some of the points connected with the subject. The plain and simple principle he took to be this:—The Legislature had conferred upon a numerous class in the country a most important political right, and, therefore, it was incumbent on them to secure to that class the free and independent exercise of the franchise with which they were invested. The proper exercise of this franchise was essential to the interests of the nation, so it was held out when the privilege was granted—and, therefore, no means should be neglected to give to it that freedom and independence it required. To political parties, or to political opinions, he meant not to refer. His opinion was, that the greater part of those evils which afflicted the country, and had called forth such heavy complaints, proceeded not from individuals in whose power it was, to carry into execution the threats and annoyances which obstructed the free action of the voter. They proceeded not from the principals, 1171 at whose door the blame was usually laid, but from unauthorised persons, from inferior parties, from agents, who threatened and intimidated the voter without the concurrence, or even the knowledge, of the honourable persons whose names they employed. How many tenants were there who had been alarmed without the slightest knowledge or authority of their landlords, who were disposed to leave them to the free and plenary enjoyment of their political rights? How many tradesmen had been threatened by servants with the loss of their masters' custom and trade, the masters themselves being totally ignorant of such mean and petty, but not the less injurious, intimidation. The principle of his Bill he had already stated, and now he would ask, whether it was a new one which he sought to introduce into the laws of the country? That persons possessed of a legal right should be left to the free enjoyment of it was, and had ever been, the principle of the common and statute law. It was well known, that formal instruments executed by parties under duresse could be avoided by pleading the fact, and by the criminal law the extorted confession of a prisoner was never admitted in evidence. So scrupulous was the law on this point that he had known instances of a Judge severely reprimanding a clergyman for only stating to a prisoner that, for his own sake, and for the trust he placed in God, it would be better for him to give a true account of the facts in reference to the accusation against him. This he stated only as an illustration of the principle for which he was contending. He next came to the Statute of the 5th of George 4th., cap. 95, which yielded to workmen and artificers of every description the right of combining and co-operating for their mutual interests; but, also, made it a criminal offence on their part to use threats or intimidation to any person, which was an illustration furnished by an existing Statute of what he proposed. He felt that he was completely fortified by both departments of the law in the limited object which he had in view. That object was to render threats and intimidation, used for the purpose of biassing the mind of the voter, a misdemeanor, punishable by fine and imprisonment. Of course the amount of the punishment inflicted would be left entirely to the discretion of the Judge and Jury, and must depend on the peculiar circumstances of each individual 1172 case. It was, however, his intention to give an increasing punishment in the event of a second conviction, and to disqualify any one convicted of the offence from ever again voting for the election of a Member to serve in Parliament. The Bill, also, contained the form of an oath, analogous to the bribery oath, which an elector could be called upon by either party to take before his vote was received. He knew that many hon. Gentlemen were favourable to secret voting, and of their opinions he was bound to speak with deference and respect; but still he thought it better to endeavour, at least, to exhaust all the means within their reach to get rid of an evil so universally complained of, before they resorted to such an extremity as the introduction of the vote by ballot. The ballot, he thought would be accompanied with much evil—it would spread fraud and deception throughout the country; tend to destroy the love of truth, and that spirit of manly and open conduct, which was the peculiar characteristic of Englishmen—the ballot, he repeated, would lead to fraud and delusion. The voter would be led by it to conceal his real intentions, and to give his vote in contradiction to his word; it would let in every sort of simulation and dissimulation; and, therefore, it was that he objected to resort to it, because he by no means wished to injure the morality of the people while he secured to them that fair independence in the exercise of their political franchise to which they had so just a right. Such were the provisions of his Bill. His object was, to extend and strengthen that just moral influence which one class of society ought to possess over another; and if anything were, more than another, calculated to uproot and destroy that necessary influence, it was the use of threats and intimidation. But what was the moral influence of which he spoke? It was that feeling which was produced in the mind of the humbler classes by the kindness they received from those upon whom they were in some measure dependent; those who were anxious for their prosperity, and watched over their happiness and comfort, while they at the same time provided for them the means of a moral and religious education. It mattered very little whether such persons as he described were absent or present during an election. The effect of their influence would be precisely the same in either case, as their sentiments 1173 would be studied by their tenants and neighbours, who, knowing and feeling that they were both honest and good, would gladly and willingly adopt them. This was the species of influence which he wished to extend and establish to the exclusion of every other; this was the influence which subdued the affections and established its empire over the hearts of men, and none but the wicked would wish to see it destroyed. With these few observations, and in this spirit, he would conclude, and, without occupying the time of the House longer, move for leave to bring in a Bill to protect the free exercise of the political franchise in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
§ Mr. Fox Maulesaid, that at that late hour, and as a Committee was sitting up stairs to whom the consideration of this subject properly belonged, it was not his intention to say more than a very few words on the present occasion. He rose to second the Motion of his hon. Friend; and as he had, since the passing of the Reform Bill, been conversant with elections, he could from experience assert, that nothing hindered the free exercise of the right of voters so much as threats and that species of intimidation which was commonly resorted to. He did not apprehend that any objection would be made to the introduction of this measure, inasmuch as the evil which it proposed to remedy was one which became the subject of animadversion on the part of the losers, for the unsuccessful party alone always complained of the bad conduct of the winners in elections. All in turn, equally cried out against the practice, and, therefore, all must agree in wishing a system removed which was generally condemned. But without going further into the subject he would say, that he gladly seconded the Motion, especially as the Bill was not to be proceeded with at once, but referred to the Committee now sitting up stairs. Should, however, that Committee protract their decision beyond a reasonable time he hoped his hon. Friend would be ready to press his Bill forward.
§ Dr. Bowringsaid, that as he was willing any experiment should be made which was likely to enable voters to record their votes conscientiously, he should vote for the introduction of this Bill, although he was convinced that it would be at last found that the simple and at the same time the best law for such a purpose was 1174 the ballot. The ballot was the only means by which that moral influence of which the hon. Member had spoken could be either appealed to, or brought to bear, as it was on all hands admitted that there would be almost insurmountable difficulties in bringing a case of intimidation home to the party who had used it. Indeed this was illustrated by the late election for Blackburne, and it was his intention to call the attention of the House on some future occasion to the mode of canvassing and personal visits of the hon. Member for that borough to the voters, as well as to the applications made and the letters written to them on his behalf. He would not have said this if the hon. Gentleman who brought forward this Bill had not laid the whole weight of the charge of intimidation at the door, not of the principals, but of inferior agents. The fact was not so, and he could bear testimony to the misery which the exercise of independence not unfrequently produced upon persons in the humbler ranks of life. When some of the poorer classes of voters were taunted for not following the dictates of their own consciences, what was their remark? Why that, as it was a matter in which their whole worldly interests were involved, they hoped they would be forgiven and allowed to go wrong. Hon. Members might rest assured that secret voting was the only means by which the system of intimidation could be got rid of, and this was exemplified by the experience of foreign countries, where the ballot was in operation. He had seen it applied to large as well as to small constituencies, and he could therefore, without the fear of contradiction, assert that in all cases it was entirely successful, and protected honesty while it put down oppression. It was his firm conviction, that the ballot must be adopted in this country.
§ Mr. Scarlettdiffered altogether from the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, because he was convinced that the ballot—secret voting—was not only unmanly, but unworthy of the character of Englishmen. The hon. Gentleman had thought fit to allude to the conduct of the hon. Member for Blackburne, but surely the hon. Gentleman should take the beam out of his own eye before he plucked the mote out of another's. The conduct of the hon. Gentleman himself was not quite so spotless 1175 as he would have the House believe. If the hon. Member complained of his hon. Friend, all he could say was that his hon. Friend complained of the hon. Member, so that in fact there were complaints on both sides. Before, however, he gave his assent to the introduction of this Bill, he wished to put a question to his hon. Friend, and that was, whether it referred to Ireland as well as to England, and if it included religious intimidation as well as intimidation of all other descriptions?
§ Mr. Poultersaid, that the Bill embraced the whole of the United Kingdom, and included as well religious as every other species of intimidation.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich seemed very anxious about religious intimidation, and he must say, that such an anxiety well became the Representative of one of the immaculate corporate boroughs of England, every feeling of the electors of which was overcome by pounds, shillings, and pence. Oh, but the hon. Gentleman came from Norwich, where so much independence prevailed! No voter belonging to that borough was ever known to take a bribe, and it would, indeed, be as well for their Representative if no bribe was to be given. But the hon. Gentleman said, that the ballot was unmanly; that it was un-English. Now, was this the case? Was it not a common practice for the Committee of one candidate for an English borough to go to the voter and say to him, "Oh, our opponent gives only 3l., but we give 3l. 10s.," and when the voter gave the preference to the larger sum, was he acting an unmanly part? The ballot, however, would take away all this corruption, and leave the people to the free exercise of their own judgment. That was certain. It was, no doubt, perfectly true, that before the Reform Act was the law, the great majority of the House of Commons was nominated by the hereditary aristocracy of the country, but that was not the case since that measure had passed. The change, however, was not much for the better, for now, instead of being returned by the hereditary aristocracy, the majority of the Members of that House were nominated by the money aristocracy—by far the worst aristocracy that could exist—aided by the power of the Crown. The Reform Bill had thrown the oligarchy of 1176 the hereditary aristocracy out of power, and now the influence of money exercised by that body was placed in much worse hands. It became the Members of that House to sustain the present motion. The Bill certainly did not go far enough, so far as he should wish; but although it did not go the length of secret voting, it still went one step towards rendering intimidation criminal, and as that would relieve those to whom such means of procuring votes was usually attributed, he trusted that the House would allow it to be brought in.
§ Mr. Fectorsaid that, representing as he did one of those boroughs to which the hon. and learned Member for Dublin alluded, representing a popular constituency of freemen, he could not sit quietly by and hear them abused in the manner they had been by that hon. and learned Member without standing forward in their vindication. Although his constituency were not so numerous as that of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he was prepared to affirm that his constituents were, at all events, as respectable, if not more so, than those of the hon. Member; and all he could say was, that he should have been ashamed to owe his position in that House to such arts and means as those by which it was alleged some hon. and learned Member on the opposite benches bad procured the seats which they now occupied. He owed his return to no intimidation; no threats had ever been used towards any elector who had voted against him; and he repeated, that if either he, or the party by whom he was supported, had resorted to such unworthy means, he would scorn to occupy a seat in that House. He was prepared to maintain, that the ballot was not the way in which Englishmen would wish to exercise their political privileges. Secret voting, he asserted, was not only un-English, but would afford protection to none but the skulking coward, who blushed for his own weakness. If a man promised to give him a vote, and because his violation of faith was screened by the ballot he broke his word, and voted against him, what could such conduct be called but moral delinquency? But would that House he should like to know, give such conduct encouragement? He hoped not, because he thought that the independent exercise of the elective franchise required no such means as secret voting to ensure it. He 1177 begged the House to accept his apology for thus occupying their attention; but representing, as he did, a respectable and numerous body of freemen, he could not hear them slandered without standing forth, however inadequate he was to the performance of the task, as their champion and vindicator.
§ Mr. Ewartsaid, that the ballot was not the question which they had now to deal with; but he could not help remarking, that whenever any mention was made of it, some peculiar sophistry, which he termed subterfuge, was resorted to for want of better reasons to negative its necessity. When the hon. Member for Norwich spoke of religious intimidation, he (Mr. Ewart) thought he alluded to a petition which had that day been presented to the House, complaining of the influence used by certain clergymen in this country at the Can terbury election. It was evident that Ireland was not the only place in which religious intimidation was resorted to. What he hoped was, that such an interference, whether by clergy or laity, would speedily be restrained.
§ Mr. Arthur Trevorsaid, that the interference of clergymen in election matters seemed to occasion dissatisfaction in the minds of many hon. gentlemen; but, for his part he did not understand, why clergymen as well as other persons should not be at liberty to exercise the legitimate influence which they possessed. [Cheers from the Opposition] The hon. Members opposite cheered; but he was ready to repeat that the clergy had as much right as any other body to use on such occasions the influence they had acquired. Could it be said, that they had attempted that which was illegal, or that their conduct bore any resemblance to that of the Roman Catholic Priests? ["Hear, hear!"] Ay, he would repeat, Roman Catholic Priests. He must protest against the odium which was endeavoured to be cast upon the clergy of England, because they exercised the influence which they possessed; but, although he said this, he would defy any one to prove that in a single instance a Protestant clergyman had used any thing like intimidation. He could not sit down without expressing his thanks to the hon. Member for Dover, for the able manner in which he had repelled the unjustifiable imputation cast by the hon, and learned Member for Dublin on certain bodies of electors in this country; 1178 and he would put it to the House, whether that hon. and learned Member was warranted in vituperating English freemen in the way he had done? He could tell the hon. and learned Member for Dublin that he (Mr. Trevor) was also the Representative of a constituency consisting principally of freemen—and that he should think himself undeserving of the confidence they had reposed in him, and unfit to represent their interests in that House, if he had allowed such observations to pass without replying to them. In every point of view the conduct of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin was unjust, and surely before he cast imputations abroad it behoved him to look a little at home. Was the constituency to whom he owed his return above all imputation? Was the electoral body of Ireland pure and immaculate, or could it be said that the 40s. freeholders were so when it was notorious that they acted under the immediate influence of the Roman Catholic Priests? It was, no doubt, a very easy matter to cast imputations; but he must say, that the constituency he represented had never disgraced themselves nor dishonoured the privileges intrusted to them.
Mr. Goulburndeprecated such a discussion, and was of opinion, that Gentlemen would better consult the interests of the country by endeavouring to avoid them. For his part he approved of the Bill, and would endeavour to give every assistance in his power to prevent intimidation at elections.
§ Leave was granted.