VOTE BY BALLOT.

Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle, Volume XVII, Issue 77, 25 September 1858, Page 3

VOTE BY BALLOT.

In the House of Commons, on the Bth of June, Mr. H. Berkeley repeated his annual motion for leave to bring in a bill to cause the votes of Parliamentary electors to be taken by way of ballot. flflThe following abbreviated report of the debate is from the News of the World, June 13 : Mr. H. Berkeley said, that in pursuance of notice, he rose to ask leave to bring in a bill to cause the votes of the electors of Great Britain and Ireland to be taken by way of ballot. It might strictly be called a Corrupt Practices Prevention Act [hear, and laughter], and as the learned Attorney-General had promised to consider a certain other Corrupt Practices Prevention Act that had hitherto been a complete failure, and although he (Mr. Berkeley) considered his bill would be very much dishonoured in such company, yet, nevertheless, he was perfectly prepared, if the Government would give him leave to bring in his bill, to place it in the bad company of the learned gentleman's, and send it to a committee. That was a fair proposition to make to a Government that had been bidding for liberal measures during this session [hear, hear, and a laugh]. He, therefore, asked them to be liberal for once,'and give him that permission. He, however, knew they would not ; there was not a chance of it. The loss of influence was the imaginary spectre they raised, which glared upon lords and squires. The ballot was the terror of their souls, and, consequently, they would keep the measure he proposed out of the house as long as they possibly could. And that he felt persuaded would be until public opinion was so strongly expressed as to cause them eventually to pass the measure. By the present system the House of Commons was a kind of preparatory academy for the sons of the nobility, till they got place, and to train them to vote in that house as their fathers did in the House of Lords.' So long as whole boroughs and counties were represented by descent, and electors were not independent voters but mere machines, so long must the public expect legislation emanating from that house to be corrupt. The power of the aristocracy had increased, was increasing, and ought to be diminished. The foundation of the Government rested upon family arrangements; nearly the whole of the cabinet were related to each other by ties of blood or marriage. They formed a snug family party, and so far differed from another exhibition called the " happy family" [laughter], that in one case all the animals were distinct in their species, and in the other, while admitting their great knowledge and talents in individuals, they could not help knowing that they were all relatives. The honourable gentleman than proceeded to show that the working of the ballot in America and Australia had been most successful on the secret system. Where the ballot had been adopted, the Government was liberal and the people were prosperous ; but in countries where open voting was adopted, the inventive powers of the people were cramped by overweeing favouritism. There were many persons who were fond of setting class against class, and who represented that if we had a ballot-elected Parliament they would refuse any extension of the franchise. That was one of the quirks and quibbles of the noble lord the member for the City of London : —

"His oft-repeated quirk he still repeats, New-raised objections by new quibbles meets, Till, sinking in the quicksand he defends, He dies disputing, and the contest ends." [loud laughter]. He warned the house against sneering at the course pursued by the Australian colony of Victoria. A more 'loyal colony did not exist than Victoria, and in the hour of England's need, during the Crimean war, that colony raised and sent over a sum of money larger than that raised by Ireland and Scotland united. The honourable member then proceeded to quote the speehes of Mr. Vernon and Mr. Hunt, delivered at the election of North Northamptonshire, which appeared to show that the screw had been put on in several places in the country. Referring to the speech of Mr. Sotheron Estcourt, the president of the Poor-law Board, he found that that right honourable gentleman opposed the ballot on the ground of the prevalence of original sin [a laugh]. He could not admit that there was any force in this argument, for if all were miserable sinners, how could the supervision of 30,000 non-electoral sinners affect the conduct of 1,000 electoral scamps [laughter]. If this were true, what a set of blackguards and mauvais sujets must they be at the clubs, where original sin acted under the cover of the ballot [a laugh]. The other day there was an election in Belgravia for the parish of St. George without. Among the candidates were Lord Ernest Bruce, General Codrington, and Phipps [laughter] ; no, not the Knight of the Bath, Phipps— a slayer of sheep, a knight of the cleaver [roars of laughter]. Now, Lord Ernest Bruce came in at the head of the poll, and Phipps [laughter], but Codrington was rejected; so that, according to the argument of the honourable member for Wilts, they must regard Bruce and Phipps as miserable sinners, for they were elected by ballot, and by original sin, while Codrington must be regarded as a saint [laughter]. In conclusion, he felt that the time was approaching when they were about to enter upon our great profligate saturnalia and orgies. There were signs of the times abroad; shabby-genteel persons were hanging about the Carlton ; the Men in the Moon' were on the look out for boroughs; the dependent would shortly be bullied, and riot and intoxication would stalk through the land, and he would advise every elector to put to the candidates searching questions respecting their opinions on the subject of the ballot [cheers]. He concluded by moving for leave to bring in his bill. Mr. W. Martin seconded the motion. Many instances of undue interference with tenantry and dependents occurred within his own knowledge, which would be protected by the ballot ; while the system had worked well in the numerous instances where it had been adopted. Mr. Hunt opposed the motion, as he objected to any man dropping a ball into a ballot-box, and then going away and telling a lie.

Mr. Estcourt would not altogether object to secrecy if it could be attained. But it was

impossible to seal up the voter's mouth, or to prevent his friends and neighbours from knowing what he had done, and talking about it. The true remedy to the present evils would be a better adjustment of the electoral franchise, and such a measure he hoped to see laid upon the table. Sir A. H. Elton supported the motion. Vote by ballot would put an end to many moral evils which were produced at an electoral contest. The franchise was, it was true, a trust, but it was one in respect of which the voter was only answerable to his own conscience.

Mr. Bentinck said that under the ballot boroughs would be sold wholesale, and the mischief would be far greater than at present. Sir G. C. Lewis did not think it possible to obtain secrecy by means of the ballot. It was not obtained either in America or at the East India House, where the ballot was in full force.

Mr. Marsh read accounts of the riotous proceedings in the Australian assemblies, elected by ballot. Mr. Ayrton defended the proposal for vote by ballot, which would be done by a verydifferent mode from that practised in America.

Lord Palmerston said that if the system adopted were one of permissive Becrecy, it would be a trap for the timid ; if compulsory, it would be inconsistent with the national character, and even with the constitution. To make compulsion effectual it must be made penal to divulge a vote. Voting by ballot would create a systematic principle of falsehood. The* franchise was a trust to be used for the national advantage, and like all other trusts should be exercised openly and in the face of day. Publicity was the only security for the proper use of the electoral functions. If they could ensure secrecy, which he contended they could not, they would alter the hardy character of the British nation, and convert electors into hypocrites. Mr. Bright said the house would make a fatal mistake if it thought this a small question, or one which could be hustled out of doors. The demands of the people for the ballot had grown louder and louder, till one day the house would not be able to resist them. The ballot was not a question of principle, but of machinery, one of which the people was the best judge; and there would be nothing inconsistent in its adoption by those hitherto opposed to it It would be impossible either for Lord Palmerston or Lord John Russell to retain the support of the Liberal party if they still continued to oppose this measure. He was once speaking to Mr. Coppock some three or four years ago on this subject, and he handed to him a note he had now in his hand, which he would read. It was dated " Porto Bello Barracks, July 24." The year was not stated, but he believed it had reference to the general election he had referred to. It was addressed to a Mr. Walden, and it said, " I understand you are doubtful which way to vote. I ask you to vote for Fitzroy ; if you do not, you leave my farm." That was short and laconic, but no tenant could misunderstand what it meant [hear, hear]. Mr. Coppock gave him at the same time two or three extracts from some letters he had received from certain solicitors engaged in conducting elections, one or two of which he would read. In one the writer said : " I wish to know if I am to be retained again for Mr. ■ I am offered a retainer on the other side of 25 guineas, which I shall accept if I don't hear from you before two o'clock." Another said — " I do not wish any retainer, as, in case there should be a scrutiny, it wauld not be desirable ; but I rely on you for payment on the same terms as before." The third was, " You must retain Mr. . His father employs several voters. By his iufluence you will secure these votes ; this should be done at once." Another was as follows : — " I am sorry to complain of you, particularly as it may appear that I am actuated by personal motives, which I assure you is not the case. I am only anxious for the success of our cause. Your agent, Mr. C, who is a stranger to this place, seems to suppose he can conduct the election without the usual professional aid. He is mistaken [laughter]. There are seven solicitors here whose services are invaluable [renewed laughter] ; but they cannot be expected to act gratuitously [hear hear]. Your election will be lost without them, as they will be retained against you. They would not expect any money till after the election. For the small sum of 400 guineas it is not worth while to lose the election. I, as a professional man, cannot vote or act without a retainer. I write to you directly, and hope you will pardon the intrusion " [laughter]. Now he had read these letters in order that he might ask the house what was the reason that a solicitor's vote was worth twenty-five guiueas? When his vote was down on the poll-book it amounted to no more tha,n the vote of any other man. But the solicitor was the man who turned the screw. He knew as he went over the list, how much A, B, C, or D owed on large or small mortgages. He knew which of them were in difficult or struggling circumstances. In short, he knew the private affairs of a larger number of the electors than any man in the borough, and therefore his influence was so essential, and when they paid their solicitor hia twenty-five guineas for his single vote, they gave it him because he could get more votes than any other man could.

Mr. Walpole denied that the ballot would afford any protection to the weak against the strong, or put down undue political influences.

Lord J. Russell admitted that the change was one of machinery, but he believed that change to be for the worse. It seemed to be taken for granted by the supporters of the ballot, that it would cure all the political evils which at present existed ; but of this there was no proof, and he himself totally denied it. Adverting to the threat of Mr. Bright, that no one but an advocate of the ballot could command the support of the Liberal party, he characterized it as an intolerant assertion, contrary to the practice of previous times, when such questions were often left open. The House divided, when there appeared — For the motion . . . 197 Against it 294 Majority against the motion — - — 97.