Lords Sitting of 23 February 1838

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Exchequer Bills; Transfer of Aids; Waterford House of Industry.
Petitions presented. By Lord BROUGHAM, from Leith, Tredgar, and Perth, against any further grant to the Scotch Church.—By the Bishop of SALISBURY, from the Clergy of his Diocese, against Education not founded on Religion.—By Lord FOLEY, from Kenilworth, for the abolition of Negro Apprenticeship.

THE BALLOT.
Viscount Melbournesaid, he had been intrusted with the presentation of a petition from Leith upon a subject of great public interest, on which public feeling was at present much ex-
48
cited, respecting which a motion had lately been made in the other House of Parliament, and observations addressed to their Lordships. He alluded to the vote by ballot. The petition which be had the honour to present had been transmitted to him, with a letter from a gentleman who had interested himself a good deal in its getting up, in which he was informed, that up to the period of the last elections the petitioners had not been inclined towards the introduction of the vote by ballot, but that so numerous and glaring had been, upon that occasion, the instances of intimidation and interference with the opinions of the voters, that they had come to the conclusion, that only the ballot would provide protection to the poorer classes among the constituent body, and they accordingly offered, through him, the present petition to their Lordships. I have seen (observed the noble Viscount) with great regret, that which has already been observed upon in your Lordships' House by the noble and learned Baron near me, namely, the progress of this measure in public opinion—a progress which it is, I must say, quite impossible to deny. This, I conceive, has arisen very much from the circumstance stated in the letter to which I have referred; namely, that at the recent elections, intimidation and the power which station and wealth give one man over another had been exercised in a more reckless and unscrupulous manner than had ever been before. Whether it be true, as alleged, that this influence has been exercised by one political party more than another, I presume to give no opinion—of my own knowledge I know nothing about it—and if I may claim to have any impression on my mind respecting the matter, it is entirely derived from what I am given to understand is the general feeling and general report. But, my Lords, if the one-half, the one-third, nay, the one tenth part of what I have heard on this head, be founded in fact, I cannot certainly at all wonder at the feeling which prevails on the subject, or that persons suffering from so much inconvenience should feel inclined to fly for relief from it to any remedy which might offer the smallest hope of redress. At the same time I cannot but express my strong hope, that the public will not allow themselves to be led away on this subject by any immediate pressure; but that, before they press for the enactment of a measure so

49
important, that they may well and maturely weigh its advantages and disadvantages with unbiassed judgment and calm and temperate feelings. My decided opinion is, my Lords, that if even all that has been said on this subject be true, the measure of the ballot is one which ought not to be adopted as a remedy. It is not my intention to introduce a debate upon the present occasion; but I must be allowed to observe, with respect to the measure, I do not believe that any mind is so comprehensive, perspicacious, or acute, as to be able to foresee what the consequences of its adoption in this country would be. Any arguments derived from its application, and successful application, in foreign countries I hold to be wholly inapplicable in regard to England. We know from experience, that measures introduced into our country from a foreign land, and measures carried from England over to other states, do not operate so well, or work in the same manner, as in the country in which they were originally brought into action; and therefore it is, my Lords, that I for one should object to the adoption of this measure of the ballot, if introduced to us on the ground of its successful application to other countries. It might succeed, my Lords, I will not take upon myself to say it would not succeed in this country; but the very uncertainty of its effects alarms me, and would prevent me from sanctioning its adoption. I may, however, my Lords, speak even more positively upon this subject; for, putting aside all other objections to its adoption, I do not hesitate to express my belief, that the ballot in no respect would prove an efficacious remedy for the evils and grievances it is intended to cure; and even if those evils and grievances prevailed to a much greater extent than they do, the ballot, so far from diminishing them, would add to their number, and at the same time introduce others of a more annoying nature. Such being my opinions, my Lords, I have but to add, that while I have great satisfaction in making known the wishes of any body of my fellow-countrymen in presenting their petitions, I cannot give my approbation to the prayer of that I now beg leave to place upon your table.
Lord Broughamsaid, it was not his intention on this occasion to discuss the question to which this petition referred. Certain it was, that the alleged exercise of
50
undue influence, and of the existence of intimidation to an extent that was almost destructive of the beneficial use of the franchise, had of late years caused the ballot to increase in popularity. It had found new favour and new advocates among the people. It was, however, a question that demanded much and serious consideration. He entirely agreed with his noble Friend in opinion, that it would be most unsafe to adopt the principle merely because it had been tried in other countries, without most anxiously considering and marking the peculiar circumstances connected with those countries. To talk of transplanting such a system from one country to another without that previous investigation and scrutiny was futile. Nothing could be more unsafe than to transfer the institutions of one country to another without carefully investigating every part of the question, because that which might agree very well with the soil of one country might be very unfit for another. He looked upon it as unsafe, because, if the system were adopted without such inquiry, it assumed, that the two experiments, that in the country where it was first tried, and that in which it was about to be introduced, proceeded on the same terms and under the same circumstances. It did not follow, because the ballot succeeded in another country, that it should be tried here. It must stand upon other grounds; he believed, that those who were friendly to it did not rest their argument upon that point. It had been alleged by the opponents of the ballot, as an argument against it, that it had not answered in France, and in opposition to that, the friends of the ballot, as an incidental part of their case, had contended, first, that it had been effectual in conciliating parties; and next, that it had produced none of those effects which had been said to arise from its adoption in other countries.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid: My Lords, I should not have thought it necessary to say a single word upon the observations which have fallen from the noble Viscount in adverting to the subject of the petition which he has presented, and the letter which it appears has been sent to him by an individual in the country, had the noble Viscount not thought proper to impute particularly to one party—I conceive not that party which is politically connected with the noble Viscount—those

51
measures and proceedings which he apprehends are so calculated to lead to that system of voting which is prayed for in the petition, and which the gentleman who has communicated with the noble Viscount has said to be the cause of his having signed that petition, and also the cause which has induced many others to follow the same course. Now, I must say, I firmly believe, that the consequence of the transactions of recent years has been, to render the possession of political power by individuals in different parts of the country, nay, I must say in every part of the country, infinitely more desirable than it was years ago. Corporations have acquired great interest—individuals have acquired great influence—and there can be no doubt whatever, that all that influence and all that interest has been directed to the purpose of promoting and acquiring political power. This is a fact of which we are all aware, which passes under the view of all of us, and cannot be denied. But, my Lords, I must say, that in respect especially to the exercise of official influence and, indeed, the exercise of influence and interest of every description, in the last seven years we have gone back above half a century. Things remain no longer in the state in which they were, according to my recollection, even ten years ago. Things are not now as they were then. But the noble Viscount has said, that noble Lords and Gentlemen have unduly exercised the influence which their property may give them over their tenants and tradesmen. Now I have been a good deal in the world, my Lords, and I know of no such thing. I know a great deal of the exercise of influence of another description—I hear a great deal of it, and I see much evidence of it—I mean the exercise of priestly influence and intimidation in all parts of a neighbouring country, where riots are invariably excited in the course of every election—but with regard to that species of influence which has been alluded to—the influence of property, and the exercise of what I must call the improper influence of men of property over their tradesmen and tenants—I know of none such; and so far as my influence goes I always beg that it may never be used. My Lords, I shall be greatly concerned if I ever see the example of other countries followed in this respect by the establishment of what is called the principle of the ballot. What is the principle that honour-
52
ably distinguishes us from other nations? The universal publicity of our conduct—the open avowal of our sentiments and intentions to all mankind. Deeply, then, should I be concerned at the introduction of a system into this country which would convey the impression that any one enjoying the right was afraid to come forward and avow publicly the notions and opinions which he entertained. With respect to the exercise of all this influence, let me ask what is the principle upon which the Constitution of this country is formed—not merely the Monarchical Constitution, for we have the happiness of living under a limited Monarchy—but the Constitution is framed not only for the protection of individual liberty and life, but also for the protection of property. We are called here for the protection of property, and for the security of the Church, as well as for the security of liberty and life; and I hope that your Lordships will never lose sight of these objects in any of your deliberations.
Lord Broughamhad always been of opinion that the ballot would afford little if any protection as between the landlord and tenant, but in towns great and undue influence was notoriously exercised by the customers over the shopkeepers, and there the ballot was unquestionably required. He, like the noble Viscount, had not alluded to one political party more than the other: both parties were, perhaps, equally to blame. He was bound, however, in justice to the noble Duke, to observe that as regarded official influence, perhaps less had been exercised by the Government of 1830—that over which the noble Duke presided—than any other within his recollection. But it was to protect the trades-people in towns that the ballot was most required. What would the noble Duke say to the following instance of undue interference. In a certain great city not far from the place in which their Lordships were sitting, a certain poor but honest and worthy tradesman had no less than sixteen written applications from different customers, all insisting on his voting one particular way, and threatening him with the loss of their custom if he did not do so, a loss which would almost amount to his ruin. Notwithstanding this that tradesman did not vote as he was ordered, and he only hoped it had not been his ruin.
Viscount Melbournebegged, in explanation, to state that he had not charged any political party particularly with having ex-

53
ercised undue influence at the late elections.
Petition to lie on the table.