THE BALLOT.

HC Deb 20 May 1856 vol 142 cc430-50

MR. HENRY BERKELEY

Sir, Pursuant to the notice I have given, I rise to renew my entreaties to this House to be allowed to bring in a Bill to relieve the Parliamentary electors of Great Britain and Ireland from the deplorable and humiliating condition to which they are reduced, entirely through the instrumentality of open voting. It is, indeed, a hard and unwelcome task to press this great question on the House, year after year, and I deeply feel the kindness which has been extended to me. I almost fear, nevertheless, that many hon. Members to whom this question is obnoxious may apply to me the words of the poet, and say, "that I cleave the general ear with horrid speech." The task I have imposed on myself is almost a Sisyphean labour; but I know that the stone I roll ought to reach the summit of the hill, and that knowledge makes me contented with placing it half-way—confident in the belief that, if I fail to carry it further, that I am yet assisting the labours of those who, at no distant period, aided by the progress of education, the diffusion of knowledge, and a more just appreciation of the value of the franchise, will be enabled to demand that, as a right, which I entreat as a boon. Before I proceed to deal more directly with this great question, I will venture to point out the position it at present holds. When I last had the honour to address the House on this subject, I quoted the names of a vast number of distinguished gentlemen, both in and out of Parliament, who had supported the ballot at various times, and whose arguments and evidence must remain, though they might secede from the support of the measure. A great majority of these still maintain their conviction, unshaken. A few have deserted their former opinions; but this fact deserves notice, that those who have changed their opinions will be found, for the most part, to have changed their politics, and those who have recanted their opinions, and who have not deserted their politics, will, for the most part, be found to have changed their constituencies, and instead of being returned for large boroughs, they will have been returned for counties where protection to the voter is reckoned an heresy to the landowner, or they will be returned for those rotten boroughs which were allowed to blur the fair face of the Reform Bill to please the Whig nobility, and from a participation in which they were unable to exclude the Tory nobility, and which are just as much their property as their houses in Belgrave, Berkeley, Grosyenor, or Portman Squares. The ballot ought not to be made a party question. I cannot argue it as such; but it is made so by the Tory party. The opposition which I meet with from the Tories I in no way complain of; to say the truth, it is manly, open, and decided. I cannot say so much for the Whig opposition to the measure. The leading Members of Whig Governments are just as bitterly opposed to the question as the Tory party; but they make it an open question, not for love of the ballot, but for love of their places, which they could not retain if they were to make it a close question, so marked and decided is the majority of their supporters in favour of the ballot. This must be to the select body of recusant Whig Ministers an exceedingly disagreeable question to cope with. When they attempt to reply to our arguments they are rewarded by Tory cheers, and they march into the lobby deserted by their friends, over whom they obtain a victory by pinning themselves to the tail of their foes. There are other circumstances which must be unpleasant to a Government calling itself Liberal. A careful analysis of the voters on this question shows that a vast majority of the great city constituencies, which have a will of their own, return Members who support the ballot, while the opposition to the measure is composed of Members representing counties, and nomination boroughs, where the electors have no will of their own. Now, while the majority of the Members of this House who are opposed to the ballot is considerable, the number of electors by whom they are returned is ridiculously small in proportion to their majority. Add to this, that the non-electors of the country are decidedly in favour of the ballot, and actually deprecate an extension of the suffrage without it; then, the fact stares you in the face, that if you were to ballot for the ballot throughout the length and breadth of the land, the majority in its favour would be enormous. I refer to these facts to show that no dismay need attend the position in which this great question stands. There is in this House a phalanx of 224 hon. Members, having at their back the flower of the electoral strength of this country, determined to win this boon for the people, and when we look back to, antecedents, are we not encouraged to hope for success? How few years have elapsed since the attempt to abolish the corn laws was termed by the then first Minister of the Crown madness? And when, year after year, we followed Charles Pelham Villiers into the lobby, were we not viewed as a select body of hopeless lunatics, much pitied by sensible Whigs and sagacious Tories? Why, the country Gentlemen who counted us at the lobby doors used to look as if they feared we should bite them. All this passed away like a dissolving view, and then we were fated to see that celebrated race run by Lord John Russell and Sir Robert Peel, to try who could first be in at the death of the corn laws. Would they ever have run that race if the people, booted, spurred, whip in hand, had not mounted on their backs and urged them to their speed? Then, I say of this question, nil desperandum. The same paucity of argument, and the same amplitude of votes, attended the question of the corn laws, as now attend the ballot. So completely one-sided is the argument of our present question, that there is not a puny editor of any petty paper, whether published in some village situated in some Irish bog, on a Scotch moor, on a Welsh mountain, or on an English plain, who, on this question, is not able to master the mighty weapon of The Times, with its Briarean power, and its host of talent. What new argument can I urge upon your attention? I can but refer to those arguments which I inherit from Mr. Grote, and which stand in the pages of Hansard unanswered, and unanswerable. I know what we must expect to be told—that the ballot is cowardly and un-English. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle is fond of saying so. Then I tell you that such assertions are a mockery to common sense, since it is plain that the army, the navy, the nobility, and commonalty of this country, being in the constant use of the ballot-box, according to your opinion, must be a pack of cowards. Before you deal again in this bold and bald assertion, be pleased to point put why it is cowardly and un-English to elect Members of Parliament by the ballot, and brave and British to elect every other possible functionary, to every other possible office in that way? The Duke of Somerset, who returns a Member for Totness, is violently opposed to the ballot. The noble Lord, who is returned for that family borough, is, of course, in the family way on the subject of the ballot, and tells us, from the hustings, that it is cowardly and un-English. The speech of the noble candidate (Lord Gifford), was so remarkable, that I hope that the noble Member will, if present, favour us with an appendix to it. The noble Lord, it appears, is an advocate for open voting, it is so manly—it reminded him of a boxing-match between a couple of his constituents in a twenty-four foot ring. Now, I think the noble Lord has hit upon a most unlucky simile when he compares a manly, fair, stand-up fight in a twenty-four foot ring to a contested election, carried on by open voting. No doubt the noble Lord is a manly Englishman, and would like to see fair play, a fair stand-up fight, not between a heavy man and a light man, not between a weak man and a strong man, but between equally matched combatants. Then I tell the noble Lord that anything redolent of fair play is no type of open voting; but let me invite the House to take a look at the ring of open voting. What equally matched combatants have we there? There you have the thirteen stone landlord squaring away at the eight stone tenant at will. There you have the six foot high customer giving it left and right to the five feet high tradesman. There you have the strong creditor getting the weak debtor's head into chancery, and there you find the employers of all sorts fearfully outmatching the employed. And this is the ring in which the noble Member for Totness aspires to carry the lemon and sponge. In this ring my noble Friend the Member for Tiverton is a judicious bottle-holder; my noble Friend the Member for London, the great umpire, holding the watch and calling time; and at Totness may be found the Duke of Somerset throwing up his hat and challenging all comers, well knowing in his valorous discretion that no one will approach that ring but tenants at will and puny tradesmen. I wish the whole bevy of these noble Lords joy of their brave pursuit. It is English, I blush to confess. It is aristocratic and primogenitural, I acknowledge; but equally certain am I that it is cowardly, tyrannical, and unconstitutional. The noble Lord has missed the only true point of comparison between the boxing ring and open voting, and that is the tendency of both to brutality and demoralisation. There is another topic equally contrary to common sense and sound argument upon which the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton continues to dilate, and the noble Lord the Member for London to rejoice in. It is that the electors hold the franchise as a trust for the non-electors—ergo, you must have open voting, in order that the non-electors may ascertain for whom the electors vote, and so become aware whether their trutees have discharged their trusts properly, or have been guilty of a breach of trust. Now, Mr. Grote dealt with this argument successfully. Two years ago I endeavoured to demonstrate its insufficiency, and I got no reply. Sir William Molesworth, in, that luminous speech which he made in support of this question, shortly before his lamented death, put an extinguisher upon it—not a bit. Last Session it was up again, fresh as ever. Now, I invite you to meet the question as I put it. I will take your own position, and fight you on your own grounds. In the first place, I accept your interpretation, and will admit the elective franchise to be a trust delegated to the electors, to be used for the benefit of the non-electors. Here it is necessary that we should bear in mind the definition, of the electoral trust. On this, I presume, we cannot differ. We agree, then, that if an elector vote freely and indifferently for any candidate or candidates, unbiassed by intimidation and uninfluenced by reward, that he faithfully discharges his electoral trust. Now, you say, that in, order that you may know whether the elector be guilty of a breach of this electoral trust, you must have open voting. I put it to, your common sense, that open voting can furnish you with no information of the sort. Open voting can inform you whether an elector vote for A, B, or C, but not the motive which impels him to vote. The mere voting for A, B, or C, constitutes no breach of trust,—the motive which impels an elector to vote may form a breach of trust, but that fact you cannot arrive at by open voting; consequently open voting cannot do that which you pretend it can do, discover to the non-elector whether the elector have or have not discharged his trust faithfully, and therefore open voting renders no service to and confers no benefit upon the non-elector. Here, then, I have shown that the advantages of open voting are negative. Now, permit me to reverse the picture, and show you that the evils of open voting are positive—instead of conserving the electoral trust, it leads to a direct breach of it. Bribery is facilitated by open voting. If you have the courage to wade deep into those foul annals of election profligacy, of which we have so unwholesome a collection, you will find that the purchaser of votes stands by the polling-booth and sees the vote delivered before he pays the price of it. The suborner will not trust the suborned. Take away the knowledge of how the elector votes—let there be no better security for the vote than the elector's honour—you upset the confidence of the dealer and destroy the very spirit of the market. So much for the breach of the electoral trust by reward. Now mark the breach of trust caused by intimidation. Intimidation lives by open voting; open voting is the breath of its nostrils, its vitality, its atmosphere; remove it out of that atmosphere, and it collapses and dies. The knowledge of how the elector votes enables punishment to follow the threat; take away that knowledge, and the threats of the intimidator become a bag of wind. I have now argued this point of the question on your own grounds, and I submit most respectfully that I have proved that, so far from open voting being a check upon a breach of electoral trust, that it is the direct means of that breach of trust taking place. I now venture to call the attention of the House to the existing state of the Ballot in America. I have the honour to belong to an association called the Ballot Society, which is in direct communication with gentlemen of high worth and respectability in America, Members of the Legislature, and others; and on their authority I have, in a former debate, shown the true state of the Ballot in America, yet the most vague, crude, and untrue statements continue to be thrown out. In the speech made by the noble Member for Tiverton, only last Session, the noble Lord asserted that— It was a great mistake to suppose that the Ballot was adopted in the United States to ensure secrecy,—it was only used as a convenient mode of taking votes for a good many officers at once. Where the mistake rests, it is my duty to prove. It may be a startling assertion to many, yet I assure the House that the circumstances attending the Game Laws and the circumstances attending the Ballot in America, are extremely similar. In some States, Game Laws existed as early as the institution of the Republic; but in the early days of that Republic, the population was sparse, the aboriginal wilderness was slightly encroached upon. Cultivation was not general, and consequently the protection of game was unnecessary; but as the country became more densely populated, and cultivation more general, it became necessary to pass laws for the protection of game, and the American Game Laws, in several States, are more stringent than the English Game Laws. Now, so it was with the Ballot. When the Republic was first instituted, the Ballot was the general mode of election; open voting in some States, indeed, existed, but this is worthy of attention, that where the Ballot originally existed, it has been adhered to invariably, whereas, the States which originally had open voting have, with very few exceptions, adopted the ballot. But, like the game laws, in the early days of the republic the ballot was not needed—no malversation of the franchise was attempted; but as America increased in wealth and importance, as she became not only a growing but a manufacturing country, as mighty cities arose, as great corporate bodies came into play—as her monied interests became varied, the franchise began to be regarded, and intimidation quickly took its stand by those voting urns where the ballot was loosely observed, and brought with it its concomitants, tyranny, suffering, and undue return of candidates; while in those States, such as Michigan, where the ballot was used in its integrity, the exact reverse was to be found. I will now call my witnesses, and then leave the House to judge who is mistaken, my noble Friend or myself. The first testimony I shall cite is that of Mr. Pierce, a gentleman of consideration residing in Massachusetts, with whom I have had the honour to correspond on the subject of protected voting. Mr. Pierce thus writes in a paper called the Dedham Gazette:— In Massachusetts and the manufacturing States intimidation is constantly practised; the manufacturers are more interested in the financial policy of the General Government, than the landlords of England were interested in the maintenance of her Corn Laws. A high tariff adds several per cent to their dividends, and the votes of their operatives may elect or defeat the advocates of a tariff. Many of them boldly avow their right to discharge those who vote against their peculiar interests; such operatives are sometimes retained, but they soon find that their wages are diminished by their political opinions. Recusant operatives are the first to be docked, and the first to be cut short or discharged when there is not work enough for all. He then gives particular instances of this general practice— In the autumn of 1850, the Chairman of the Whig State Central Committee of Massachusetts, sent a circular to prominent Whigs in the contested towns, to use all the influence in their power over the men in their employ, or in any way under their control. The superintendent of the Boott Mills, Lowell, when called upon by two gentlemen, candidates for the Legislature, and asked whether he intended to discharge the operatives who voted the ten hour coalition ticket, replied, 'that the Corporation would discharge every man who voted that ticket.' A statement of the interview was published by these gentlemen, under their signatures, and its truth has never been denied or questioned. Mr. Pierce adds the following paragraph taken from The New Bedford Mercury, a Whig paper in Massachusetts— Inspectors, be sure and attend early and late at the polls, so as to obtain each and every name of those Locofocos who vote the Locofoco free-trade wages' ticket for the selectmen and other town officers. It is of the greatest importance that a true and faithful list should be preserved and published, in order that the public may know them. It is not proper or right, that any one who is a friend to this town's prosperity, should aid, trade with, or employ men who will vote at once against its best interest, its only interest, the whaling business. At the time when the intimidation at elections, of which the above are instances, was practised, the system of voting in force in Massachusett's was this—'All votes were given by written or printed tickets containing only the names of the candidates voted for. These tickets were, by special enactment, required to be presented for deposit in the ballot-box open and unfolded. By standing at the polling place, any one wishing to know for whom the electors were voting, might ascertain the fact with the greatest ease.' The next document I propose to quote, is a letter from the Hon. Amasa Walker, ex-Secretary of State, who moved for a committee in the Legislature of Massachusetts, to consider of the malversation of the franchise. This committee was granted, and upon its report an Act passed the Legislature to cause the votes to be taken by a strictly secret ballot. Let Mr. Walker speak for himself; his letter is addressed to the Secretary of the Ballot Society in England, who had been instructed to obtain information from so high a source. Mr. Walker thus writes:— In Massachusetts corporations, formed for various industrial and financial purposes, give a peculiar character to the State. Individuals die; the corporation never dies. Individuals are, by the force of public sentiment, held morally responsible for their acts; corporations have no moral responsibility. They have no souls. Whatever the extent of their wealth, often amounting to many millions of dollars, and having the power of controlling the destinies of multitudes who hold their places, and even their very dwellings, as tenants at will, these corporations are always placed under the management of a small board of directors, who, in turn, transfer their power to the hands of a single agent, or superintendent, for the time being vested with all the attributes of sovereignty which such corporations can confer. These companies, so organised and managed, scattered all over the commonwealth, united in sympathy and interest, form a sort of moneyed feudalism, and sway a mighty influence whenever they choose, as they often do, to enter the political arena. Many thousands of voters are in the service of these bodies, and up to the year 1851 were constantly exposed to their dictation at the ballot-box. In that year the law for 'the better security of the ballot' was enacted. Its history is as follows— The great struggle against the slave power, which first manifested itself in 1848, excited a strong interest, and caused the friends of freedom to feel how much their efforts were paralysed by the controlling influence which the Conservative Pro-slavery party was able to exert upon the masses by their power of intimidation at the polls. Hence they began to look with new and increased anxiety for some means of relief. Having the honour of a seat in the Massachusetts Senate in the year 1850, my mind was particularly directed to the subject, and I earnestly sought to devise some means by which the desired independence of the voter might be secured. While thus thinking upon the subject, it suddenly occurred to me (for I had never heard it suggested) that the true method was to enclose the ballot in an envelope, and then, having sealed the same, place it in the ballot-box. As soon as the idea presented itself to my mind, I felt assured that it was the true one, and accordingly, without an hour's delay, offered an order in the Senate, 'to inquire what measures could be taken for the better security of the ballot. In compliance with the Motion, a joint Committee of two from the State and five from the House of Representatives was appointed. Notwithstanding a majority of this Committee belonged to that party in the Senate which has always manifested the greatest hostility to a free ballot, the plan proposed commended itself so much by its simplicity and efficiency, and the evidence presented before the Committee of the great pvactical evils of the old system was so conclusive, that a majority of the Committee agreed upon a Report and Bill, a copy of which I send you herewith. I believe, Sir, I have now answered, however imperfectly, the various inquiries proposed to me, and, in conclusion, have only to add that I feel a dee interest in the object for which your society is organised. I earnestly hope you will succeed, and that speedily. The ballot will be an inestimable boon to the people of Great Britain. It will infuse new force and vitality into the Government—it will aid in every popular reform—it will tend to elevate and improve the condition of the people, and when once established, will be regared with favour by all who feel an interest in the welfare and happiness of the country. That you will have the sealed ballot whenever you have a ballot at all, I have no doubt. You will, I am sure, insist upon it, and not be put off with any half-way measure. Our whole experience leads us to feel that the sealed ballot is what the people are entitled to, and what they must have if they would secure their greatest good. Such a ballot has bitter enemies—here, as I suppose it has with you. All who wish for exclusive privileges, for class legislation, for the rule of the aristocratic few, are, without exception, opposed to it, while all who wish that the people should govern, that all should have equal privileges and rights, that legislation should be general, instead of special, and for the benefit of the whole, instead of a part, are the active friends of the new mode of voting. It is the surest test of political character we have ever had in this country, and I presume it will be found so in yours. Should any further information be needed, I shall be happy to furnish all in my power, and any additional documents that may be wanted. Hoping to hear of the continued progress of your excellent society, and of its final and triumphant success, I have the hour to be, your obedient Servant, AMASA WALKER. I now trouble the House with the report of the committee obtained by Mr. Walker, which is to the following effect:— The ballot in this Commonwealth, in its true character, is but a name. Yet your committee are confident that this is not, and never was, the wish of the present or any past Legislature of Massachusetts. They feel assured that it is, and ever has been, an object of sincere desire, to secure to each citizen the free and unbiassed exercise of his elective franchise, and that the present system was adopted, only because no other at the time seemed feasible. The progress of events, however, has at length brought to our minds a mode by which the rights of the citizen may be fully secured, and yet the most effectual guarantees against fraudulent voting obtained. The use of letter envelopes, which has within a few years been introduced into this country, has, it is believed, suggested a very simple, cheap, and efficacious remedy, for all the evils which have heretofore been complained of. If each voter be required to place his ballot in a sealed envelope, and in that manner deposit the same in the ballotbox, no one can know, unless he chooses to announce his vote, as he has an undoubted right to do, the character of the ticket or the persons for whom he has voted. No man acts irrespective of surrounding influences. Some are more independent of circumstances than others, but there are none, whatever their condition, who do not sometimes act under more or less constraint, in giving an open and easily recognised ballot. This will, we think, appear probable if we take into view the following considerations:—In the first place, almost every individual is attached to some political party. He feels that, on the whole, his party is nearer right than any other party, and wishes to act with it. But if he be a true man, he will never give up his conscience to the dictation of others. He will always reserve to himself the right of deciding upon men and measures, and if either are presented which he cannot approve, he will wish, silently, at least, to refuse his concurrence. But this he cannot now do. Nothing can be more imperious, more absolute, than the dictation of party spirit. It knows no mercy; it permits no disobedience to its behests; it is satisfied only with the most entire submission to its mandates. This is the character of all parties; there is no difference. If a candidate be presented, no matter how obnoxious, how unsuitable, every man of the party must give him his vote under the pains and penalties of excommunication. If party feelings run high, the polls are narrowly watched, and the unfortunate individual, who would fain obey the dictates of his own breast, must deposit his vote,—for it can scarce be called a ballot,—under the espionage of party leaders, whose eagle-eyed vigilance he can hardly hope to escape, and whose angry frowns he may feel quite unwilling to encounter. Is it not so? And, if so, shall we hesitate to provide, if we can, an easy and effectual remedy,—a remedy by which the peaceable and retiring citizen may be allowed to express his sincere convictions at the ballot-box, without incurring a merciless storm of party denunciation? Is it any reflection on such a man, to suppose that he would gladly avoid, if he could, so unpleasant an alternative? And ought he not to have the privilege of doing so? Shall a man, in the exercise of his elective franchise, be obliged to meet obstacles of this nature, if there is no necessity for it? Again, in a community like ours, no inconsiderable portion stand to each other in the relation of employer and employed. We need not suppose that the employer utters any threats; we need not suppose that there are any overt acts of intimidation, but will not an influence, greater or less, be exerted over the minds of persons thus situated? Is it unreasonable to suppose that some, at least, under such circumstances, choose to forego the right of suffrage, rather than exercise it contrary to their own convictions, or the well-known wishes of their employers? Again, many persons are placed in the relation of tenants, tenants at will often, others that of debtors. Will neither of these clauses ever be likely to feel embarrassment in the expression of their political preferences at the polls? In addition to all these influences, there are others of a general nature, from which no one, whether high or low, rich or poor, are wholly exempt, the influence of social life. No man ordinarily wishes to offend a neighbour or make an enemy, and rather than incur the hazard of doing either, how many will be induced to forego, in some degree, their real preferences and opinions? The right of suffrage is the most sacred of all political rights, and should be most carefully guarded. If the juryman, in the exercise of his functions, be required to be free from all bias, and to act without fear, favour, affection, or hope of reward, how much more ought the citizen, in the discharge of his highest duty, that of electing his rulers, to be equally free from all bias whatever? If we are bound to guard the jury-box, are we not still more bound to guard the ballot-box, that fountain and source of all political power, and surest safeguard of public liberty? In view of these considerations and facts, your committee, regarding the subject as worthy the attention of the Legislature of this Commonwealth, respectfully report the accompanying Bill. AMASA WALKER, WILLIAM KIMBALL, JOHN M. BLISS, GEORGE COWDREY, CHARLES F. BATES. Now, then, I submit to the House, that in this plain unvarnished tale we have reflected back to us a picture of intimidation perfectly English. The intimidation of the aristocracy in England is rivalled by the intimidation of a pro-slavery feudalism in America. The intimidation of the landocracy in England is rivalled by the intimidation of a mercantile confederacy in America. Corrupt corporate bodies in England may shake hands with corrupt corporate bodies in America, and a monied oligarchy is the electoral bane of both countries. The Americans put their shoulders to the wheel to drag themselves out of this moral mire; you, on the contrary, prefer to stick in the mud, and to wallow in corruption, rather than part with the power of intimidation. You cannot deny the scandalous state into which England is plunged at every general election; and when these evils come before you, then, indeed, you produce some miserable abortion in the shape of an Act of Parliament, and pretend that it is a remedy. Take, for instance, your Corrupt Practices Prevention Act. It has done just that which you intended it should do—nothing! Look to the accounts of contested elections since that Act has been in force. Bribery rampant, intimidation roaring through the land. I invite the House to listen to a few light details of our amended electoral system. Take the following description of the scenes discovered at the last Boston election, from a London paper of March 6th of this present year:— Will it be believed, after all our Acts upon bribery and corruption, and the pains and penalties held in terrorum over the heads of the free and independent, that in the borough of Boston there exists, at the present moment, a confederacy of freemen and electors, known as the 'Rock Club,' who march through the town with a green banner and a fife and drum, making known to the rival candidates that there they are, ready to be purchased, and to sell their votes to the highest bidder? No later than Tuesday morning last, a deputation from this body, numbering some twenty voters, waited upon the agent of Colonel Sleigh, and requested to be informed how much per head that gentleman was willing to pay for their votes. Disgusted at such corrupt and abominable proceedings, with a spirit which is deserving of all praise, Colonel Sleigh spurned the aid of such myrmidons, and withdrew from a contest in which honour was not to be achieved even by a candidate who goes in first at the head of a Boston poll. When it was announced that the Independent candidate would withdraw, his committee marched into his rooms, and each formally presented bills thus worded—'To attendance upon Colonel Sleigh, in committee and canvass, £1 10s.' And these are 'free and independent voters,' who have a voice in returning to Parliament one of the representatives of the country. The more we see of the present electoral system the more we are satisfied that no Act now in force has the power to check bribery and corruption. I now take Bath, and give you the evidence of both candidates as to intimidation:— Mr. Tite said: He would come now to another screw, and connected with it was the ballot. He was a man who could always hold up his hand and vote as he pleased, caring for no man; but it was a very different thing with many amongst the constituency of Bath, where the screw was put on. His learned friend had suggested that he knew of one case in which a supporter of his was the victim; he could name five or six distinct cases where the screw had been put on his friends. Mr. WHATELEY: And I know of ten or twelve cases since I have been here. Mr. TITE: If that were so the greater was the necessity for the ballot on both sides. I have learnt a lesson at Barnstaple, where exclusive dealing is carried on so far that the names of all who voted for the Whig candidate were entered in the blue-book; and 'so they are here.' A poor man yesterday said, when I asked for his vote; and told him it was a mere question of voting—'No, sir, it is not only my vote, which I would willingly give, if I dare; but the bread of my family is dependent upon it.' Before I quit the west of England, pray let me present you with the, chaste and immaculate borough of Wells; it sets an edifying example.. It has been said that when Greek meets Greek then is the tug of war. But I say, when Whig meets Whig then is the tug of war; and depend upon it that when that happens, the constituency is sure to be well double-thonged between them. I give you an account of the proceedings of the Government whipper-in from the London Standard, and of the Opposition whipper-in from the Globe. The Standard says— About a fortnight before Mr. Tudway's death, when all hope of his recovery was at an end, this little city was visited by its other representative, the right hon. W. G. Hayter, the patronage secretary of the Treasury. For ten days successively the right hon. gentleman drove punctually into the city from the friend's house where he was staying, three miles distant, and remained until late in the evening, perambulating the streets, calling upon various electors, accosting them, and making the most affectionate inquiries into their welfare. Singularly enough, while he was here, a rumour got into circulation that still more patronage was to be placed at the disposal of the Wells electors, notwithstanding the astounding published list of seventy places already bestowed, and, by way of an earnest, an odd berth or two was given to deserving applicants. The mayor has issued a notice containing various clauses of the 'Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1854,' to warn the electors against the consequences of bribery and treating. The clause having reference to the promises of place, office, and employment, to procure votes, has an especial bearing upon the recent visit of Mr. Hayter. The Globe, a Government paper, of the 26th November, 1855, has selected the following article from the Bath Journal, and thus describes the Tory doings:— There remained, in the evening of the day of nomination, some twenty undecided voters. The majority of these, it was believed, would vote for the Liberal candidate. During the night it oozed out that two important personages, well known at a notorious club in London, were doing an extensive business at the 'Swan,' and when the morning came, by some mysterious process of persuasion, these 'independent electors' all went to the poll for the Tory candidate. The disgraceful scenes which occurred during the poll are almost beyond description. The 'dab-in-the-hand men,' as they are termed, were marched to poll guarded by an escort, like deserters to the guard-room—or felons to their cells. The Tory landlord might be seen dragging up his refractory tenant, and the patroniser of some small tradesman in close attendance upon his helpless and unfortunate victim. We saw one 'hanging-back' freeman pulled, pushed, and carried to the hall by four independent voters of the immaculate order, and, of course, having had so much kindness and attention bestowed upon him, he had no alternative but to vote for the Crimean hero—or rather absentee. The clerical influence, strange as it may seem, was used to a great extent. Men who were pledged to the Serjeant were almost pestered to death by their impertinent annoyances; and threatened with the loss of their favours if they did not regard their promise as a joke, and vote for their 'darling Captain.' 'The Corrupt Practices Prevention Act' of 1854, is a mere farce, and of no more value than so much waste paper. Well, Sir, at Leominster there has been; an election, and of so little use has been the corrupt practices prevention Act, that the electors petition for the ballot. There has been an election for Rochester, and the hon. Member just returned stated on: the hustings, that the proceedings he had witnessed had made him an advocate for the ballot. There has been an election, too, for the borough of Midhurst. Now this borough is an appurtenance to the Cowderay property. An auctioneer in describing the advantages of that estate, might say, with truth, the woods abound with game, the rivers with fish, and at the disposal of the proprietor are wild rabbits and tame electors. The present owner of the borough, Lord Egmont, has evinced great judgment and good taste in the selection of his Members. He has replaced his own nephew, one of the most popular Members who ever sat in this House, now the worthy representative of the University of Cambridge, by another hon. and learned Member whose literary talents are known to fame. It is not with these hon. Members that I am at war, but I am at war to the knife, with the system which they uphold and the abominations thereof which they conceal. Take, for instance, the speech of the late candidate for Midhurst, Mr. Warren, made upon his election and reported in the papers. I never read such playful irony. The hon. and learned Gentleman actually told the electors of Midhurst that he canvassed them for eleven successive days in an easterly wind. The result was, that after enduring more than Crimean hardships, he had arrived at the conclusion that all their votes were unfettered. He then threw up his hat—I mean Lord Egmont's hat—and challenged all and sundry to do battle with him; and when nobody came, he told the electors that he was a proud man, and their affectionate brother. I really cannot account for this speech, otherwise than by supposing that the hon. and learned Gentleman had been studying his own pleasant novel, called "Ten Thousand a-Year," and was giving the electors a strong touch of his favourite character, 'Oily Gammon.' Sir, I know not how my Motion may be met, but as my opponents seldom attack the vanguard of the argument, assailing its flanks and looking out for unguarded points, let me inspect my defences. Perhaps I may be accused of making an onslaught on the aristocracy. To that I reply, that I cannot in one speech embrace the wide field of argument and instances which the ballot presents. As certain aristocrats have thrust themselves lately into the melée, I have repelled their attacks. It may be said then, you would exclude the Members of noble families from the House of Commons. I would do no such thing. I would merely take from the heads of noble Houses, the unconstitutional power of commanding seats in this House for their nominees. Now, I utterly disbelieve that the scions of the aristocracy would be excluded from Parliament. I believe that the names of Villiers, Stanley, Walpole, or Duncan, represented as they are, would find their way into the Roll of the Commons House, ballot or no ballot; but, I would take from Clarendon, Derby, Egmont, or Camper-down, the power of forcing them there. In former speeches, I have placed before the House the tyranny of the democracy and their unconstitutional interference with the franchise. In short, Sir, I have attacked the malversation of the franchise wherever I have found it, without reference to party, rank, or station. One word in conclusion to administrative reformers. You had a Committee, I warned you how it would end. It resulted in the complete; exculpation and glorification of Mr. Russell, the Times correspondent; any other result was impracticable in a House of Commons which carries the peoples' purse, but is compulsorily elected by the House of Lords. I call upon all administrative reformers, then, to vote for this question. By giving protection to the elector, you admit the genial sun of the people to shine into the Commons House, and thus, and thus only, can you prevent salutary measures of reform from being blighted by the cold shade of aristocracy.

SIR DE LACY EVANS

seconded the Motion.

MR. PEACOCKE

said, he thought that there was a great discrepancy between the general terms in which the hon. Gentleman had addressed the House and the terms of his Motion. The hon. Gentleman had brought forward not one single individual case in support of his general statement. In spite of the connection of the hon. Gentleman with the Ballot Society, in spite of his sympathy with the grievances of oppressed voters, he had not been able apparently to furnish the House with a single instance of intimidation. It was not enough for the hon. Member to come down to that House and say intimidation is carried on which should not be carried on, and therefore give us the Ballot; for no conclusion could be more illogical. The hon. Gentleman ought to prove that the Ballot would be a protection to conscientious voters, and to prove that, he apprehended would be rather difficult. Suppose an election had taken place, and afterwards the landlord went to his tenant, or the wealthy manufacturer to his tradesman, and asked him what way he had voted—if the tenant or tradesman had voted for the friend of his patron the Ballot would be superfluous; if he had not, and confessed the fact, the Ballot would be no protection, nor would it be if he refused to answer, so that, in point of fact, it would only be a protection to the man who having voted against the friend of his patron denied that he had done so, that was to say, it would be a protection only to the liar, the hypocrite, and the knave. Was that portion of the community so deserving of protection that for their interests alone the House ought to consent to introduce a system of secret suffrage? Did the hon. Gentleman suppose that those persons who fancied they had a right to influence the conduct of voters would allow themselves to be defeated by the Ballot-box or by sealed envelopes? No. They would seek to exercise the influence in spite of all enactments, and they would be the more excited to do so by a gauntlet of defiance being thrown down to them by the Legislature. Gentleman men who at present would reject the idea of espionage as discreditable would, in that case, hardly hesitate to stoop to any means within their reach in order to baffle and defeat the attempts of a Legislature which sought to deprive them—vainly as he believed would be the case—of that influence to which, as they imagined, their position legitimately entitled them. A tenant would then be whispered out of his holding, and while, at present, he only ran the risk of losing his farm if he voted against the wishes of his party, he would, under the uncertainty engendered by the proposed measure, be equally opposed to that risk if he voted with them. Harassed by the spy and maligned by the informer, he would then sigh for the time when every vote was recorded in open day, and when he could point to the vote-book in his favour. He (Mr. Peacocke) would appeal to the real friends of purity of election—and he was doubtful if he could class hon. Gentlemen opposite among them—to say whether they could regard the passing of the Ballot with any other feelings than those of alarm. You might then be certain that there existed in any particular locality a perfectly organised system of corruption, and yet you would he powerless to defeat it. You would then have electors disposed of, he supposed, according to the most approved principles of political economy—bought in the cheapest and sold in the dearest market. The hon. Member (Mr. H. Berkeley) had declared that there would be no corruption, because, if vote by ballot prevailed, the candidate could not trust to the promise of the elector, and because no one man could put trust in the promise of another. He would pass over this optimist view of human nature taken by the hon. Member for Bristol, but he would appeal to experience to say whether, in practice; that had been found to have been the case. Why, the first instance of organised corruption, discovered was at Shoreham, in 1771, which place was bought and sold by the Christian Club, a club conducted on such strictly Evangelical principles that they would have been dear to the heart of even the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord R. Grosvenor). Later on they learnt that the highest sense of honour pervaded the electors of Sudbury, and that at St. Albans the electors adhered to their plighted word with a chivalry which would have done honour to a Talbot or a Peterborough. But the hon. Gentleman had alluded to the United States. Now, he would take leave to rend an extract from the New York Herald, Written immediately after the election of 1852, to show the hon. Member for Bristol that, at all events, an organised system of corruption was consistent with a system of secret voting:— Look at the proceedings on Thursday last in the Nineteenth Ward—voters carried to the ballot-box in scores of waggons from various lacalities, and in other wards hundreds of Democrats voting for Scott or for Fillmore—men ignorant and steeped in crime—picked up in all the purlieus of the city, and purchased at a dollar a head, and some, it is said, as low as fifty cents, to deposit in the ballot-box a vote they had never seen. This demoralising process is playing fearful havoc with our institutions, rendering them, to a vast extent, not only a nullity, but perverting them to mischief, to a bad and corrupt legislation, and to the maladministration of public justice. The judicious grieve at these results, but what can they do to arrest the progress of the evil? And he was told that the friends of purity of election in the United States so far differed in opinion from the hon. Gentleman that they believed the only system which would remedy the evil would be the introduction of open voting. If secret voting were established in this country his belief was, that our electoral system would be exposed, not only to the danger of an organised corruption, but to an organised system of fraud. How could you insure that the number of votes would rightfully correspond with the number of voters? He was told the other day of a case in which the members of a Horticultural Society in the north of England were called upon to vote, and when the ballot-box was opened forty-nine votes were found recorded, though only thirty-seven persons were entitled to vote. Now, if a system of fraud such as he had described prevailed in so small a matter as this, to what an extent might it not be expected in the exciting case of an electoral struggle and under the maddening influences of party conflict? But he would go further than this and would ask—Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? How was it proposed to prevent fraud on the part of those Who received the votes, guarded the ballot-boxes, and declared the result of the election? How were they to guard against the corruption of the returning officers and their deputies? The ballot, however, would in one way check corruption among the constituencies, because it would then be cheaper and far more certain to bribe the officials and returning officers. But even in the most improbable contingency that you would have a pure election under a system of secret voting— would the losing side ever be brought to think so, much more to acknowledge it? When the Emperor of the French was elected by an immense majority, was it not everywhere proclaimed and believed that that election Was the result of unfair means? Did the House suppose that it would be otherwise here? Would not the losing side always say that the victory had been gained by fraud or achieved by corruption, and did they think public opinion would be uninfluenced by such clamour? Would the public be disposed to place confidence in hon. gentlemen as being the real exponents of the opinions of their constituents? Would the public even place confidence in that House itself, when composed of members elected under such a system? He did not believe any system could he devised which was so calculated to bring Representative Government into general odium and contempt. He had heard of invectives hurled against the Emperor of Austria because His Majesty had denied Representative Government to his subjects, and the Emperor of the French had also been exposed to an immense amount of vituperation on the same grounds, but neither the bayonets of the Austrian nor the artillery of the French Emperor would, he believed, more entirely subvert Parliamentary Government, and destroy its reputation and authority; than the measure which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol now proposed in the pseudo-interest of popular government. When, too, the hon. Member did not purpose to extend his proposal to voting in that House, he (Mr. Peacock) could not help regarding it as a measure inconsistent upon the very face of it. That House was placed, with reference to its constituencies, precisely in the same position as the constituencies were placed with reference to the nation at large. Perhaps he should be told that Members of that House were not subject to the influence of corruption and intimidation. Now, he did not mean to say that hon. gentlemen were open to the vulgar influences of a bribe in the shape of a £5 note; but he would appeal to the experience of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wells (Mr. Hayter) to know if hon. gentlemen were indifferent to all the social influences which could be brought to bear upon them, and whether votes in that House were always given under the influence of the purest patriotism? Moreover, was not the intimidation practised by constituencies palpable and undenied? Were the votes of that House always a fair reflex of the opinions of its Members? He could give many instances in which one language was used in the lobby, while the vote was given in an opposite direction. But it would, perhaps, be said that, whereas the influence exerted by landlords over their tenants was an illegal one, that exerted by constituents over their representatives was in harmony with the spirit of our constitution. Now, he thought that any one who used such an argument had much to learn—had to learn that they were not sent to that House as delegates to reflect the passing opinions of their constituents, and to vary like a barometer with the state of the weather but that they were here to legislate according to what they believed to be for the welfare of the whole community; and if, therefore, secret voting ought to be conferred upon the electoral body, they also had a right to claim the same immunity from intimidation and the same security from pressure from without. If the Ballot were conferred on the electoral body, and not on that House, they would establish an oligarchy of £10 or £8 householders, as the case might be, who, wielding an irresponsible authority by exercising a secret suffrage, would be enabled to fashion legislation in a form favourable to their own class interests, and in course of time doubtless shift the national burdens from their own shoulders. Against the possibility of such a danger it was the duty of the Legislature to guard. Those with whom he acted did not oppose the Ballot upon anti-liberal principles. They opposed it in the name and interest of the unrepresented and unenfranchised classes, who were entitled to know in what way the suffrage was exercised by those to whom that sacred trust had been delegated. They opposed it because they were unwilling to sow the seeds of a general feeling of suspicion and distrust, which would render the constitutional form of Government a curse instead of a blessing. They opposed it because they were unwilling to expose the national representation to a system of universal lying and organised hypocrisy.

MR. H. BERKELEY

, in reply, said, the cause of the riot in New York, which had been referred to, was open and not secret voting.

Motion made and Question put, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to protect the electors of Great Britain and Ireland by taking the votes by way of Ballot."

The House divided: —Ayes 111; Noes 151: Majority 40.

List of the AYES.
Adair, H. E.	Ingram, H.
Adair, Col.	Johnstone, J.
Alcock, T.	Keating, H. S.
Atherton, W.	Kershaw, J.
Ball, J.	King, hon. P. J. L.
Baxter, W. E.	Kinnaird, hon. A. F.
Berkeley, F. W. F.	Langston, J. H.
Bethell, Sir R.	Langton, H. G.
Biddulph, R. M.	Laslett, W.
Biggs, W.	Lee, W.
Black, A.	M'Cann, J.
Blake, M. J.	M'Mahon, P.
Bonham-Carter, J.	Magan, W. H.
Brocklehurst, J.	Mangles, R. D.
Brockman, E. D.	Martin, J.
Brotherton, J.	Martin, P. W.
Butler, C. S.	Massey, W. N.
Byng, hon. G. H. C.	Meagher, T.
Challis, Mr. Alderman.	Miall, E.
Chambers, M.	Moffatt, G.
Chaplin, W. J.	Muntz, G. F.
Coffin, W.	Murrough, J. P.
Collier, R. P.	Norreys, Sir D. J.
Crossley, F.	North, F.
Currie, R.	O'Brien, J.
Davie, Sir H. R. F.	O'Connell, Capt. D.
De Vere, S. E.	Oliveira, B.
Dillwyn, L. L.	Otway, A. J.
Duncan, Visct.	Pechell, Sir G. B.
Duncan, G.	Pellatt, A.
Esmonde, J.	Phillimore, J. G.
Ewart, W.	Pilkington, J.
Ewart, J. C.	Ricardo, S.
Ferguson, Col.	Rice, E. R.
Ferguson, J.	Roebuck, J. A.
FitzGerald, J. D.	Scobell, Capt.
Forster, C.	Seymour, W. D.
Fox, W. J.	Smith, J. B.
Freestun, Col.	Somerville. rt. hn. Sir W.
Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.	Stanley, hon. W. O.
Glyn, G. C.	Strickland, Sir G.
Goderich, Visct.	Strutt, rt. hon. E.
Gower, hon. F. L.	Sullivan, M.
Greene, J.	Tancred, H. W.
Grenfell, C. W.	Thornely, T.
Hadfield, G.	Tite, W.
Hall, rt. hon. Sir B.	Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.
Hankey, T.	Vivian, H. H.
Hastie, Alex.	Walmsley, Sir J.
Hastie, Arch.	Warner, E.
Headlam, T. E.	Watson, W. H.
Heywood, J.	Wickham, H. W.
Holland, E.	Wilkinson, W. A.
Horsman, rt. hon. E.	Willcox, B. M'G.
Hughes, H. G.	TELLERS.
Hutt, W.	Berkeley, F. H. F.
Ingham, R.	Evans, Sir De L.

List of the NOES.
Agnew, Sir A.	Baines, rt. hon. M. T.
Annesley, Earl of	Baring, rt. hon Sir F. T.
Arbuthnott, hon. Gen.	Barrington, Visct.
Bagge, W.	Barrow, W. H.
Baillie, H. J.	Beckett, W.

Bennet, P.	Langton, W. Gore
Bentinck, G. W. P.	Lennox, Lord A. F.
Bernard, Visct.	Leslie, C. P.
Bignold, Sir S.	Lewis, rt. hon. Sir G. C.
Blackburn, P.	Liddell, hon. H. G.
Blandford, Marquess of	Lindsay, hon. Col.
Bramley-Moore, J.	Lowther, Capt.
Buck, Col.	Lushington, C. M.
Burrell, Sir C. M.	Macartney, G.
Burrowes, R.	Mackinnon, W. A.
Cabbell, B. B.	Malins, R.
Cavendish, hon. C. C.	Manners, Lord G.
Cayley, E. S.	Masterman, J.
Chelsea, Visct.	Maunsell, T. P.
Christy, S.	Miles, W.
Codrington, Sir W.	Michell, W.
Coles, H. B.	Monck, Visct.
Colvile, C. R.	Moncreiff, J.
Conolly, T.	Mowbray, J. R.
Coote, Sir C. H.	Mulgrave, Earl of
Cowper, rt. hon. W. F.	Naas, Lord
Davies, D. A. S.	Newdegate, C. N.
Davies, J. L.	Newport, Visct.
Deedes, W.	Nisbet, R. P.
Disraeli, rt. hon. B.	Oakes, J. H. P.
Drax, J. S. W. S. E.	Ossulston, Lord
Duncombe, hon. A.	Palmer, Roundell
Dundas, G.	Palmerston, Visct.
Dungarvan, Visct.	Patten, Col. W.
Dunne, Col.	Peel, Gen.
Egerton, Sir P.	Percy, hon. J. W.
Egerton, W. T.	Phillimore, R. J.
Emlyn, Visct.	Portal, M.
Euston, Earl of	Pritchard, J.
Farnham, E. B.	Pugh, D.
Ferguson, Sir J.	Repton, G. W. J.
Filmer, Sir E.	Robertson, P. F.
Forester, rt. hon. Col.	Russell, Lord J.
Galway, Visct.	Russell, F. C, H.
Gaskell, J. M.	Rust, J.
Gilpin, Col.	Scott, hon. F.
Gladstone, rt. hon. W.	Shirley, E. P.
Gladstone, Capt.	Smith, rt. hon. R. V.
Gooch, Sir E. S.	Smith, W. M.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.	Smollett, A.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.	Stafford, A.
Grosvenor, Earl.	Stirling, W.
Gurney, J. H.	Stracey, Sir H. J.
Gwyn, H.	Stewart, Sir M. R. S.
Halford, Sir H.	Stuart, Capt.
Hall, Gen.	Sutton, J. H. M.
Hamilton, Lord C.	Thesiger, Sir F.
Hamilton, G. A.	Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Hamilton, rt. hn. R.C.N.	Vance, J.
Handcock, hon. Capt. H.	Vane, Lord H.
Harcourt, Col.	Verner, Sir W.
Hardynge, hon. C. S.	Walcott, Adm.
Hardy, G.	Walsh, Sir J. B.
Hayes, Sir E.	Walter, J.
Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.	Warren, S.
Heard, J. I.	Welby, Sir G. E,
Heathcote, Sir W.	Whitbread, S,
Henley, rt. hon. J. W.	Whitmore, H.
Holford, R. S.	Wilson, J.
Horsfall, T. B.	Wrightson, W. B.
Hotham, Lord	Wyndham, Gen.
Howard, hon. C. W. G.	Wyndham, W.
Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.	Wynne, W. W. E.
Jolliffe, H. H.	Wynne, rt. hon. J.
Jones, Adm.	Yorke, hon. E. T.
Kelly, Sir F.	TELLERS.
King, J. K.	Peacocke, G. M. W.
Labouchere, rt. hon. H.	Vyse, Col.