state of education, is it not likely that your Lordships' indulgence by repeating many of them, through error, inadver- the arguments I then used; but I wish to tence, or other causes, may disclose the refer to one point which seems to me to way in which they have voted? If such deserve the consideration of your Lorda voter is indicted, who will be the wit- ships before we come to a vote on the ness against him? Obviously persons in Question before us. The next important the polling-booth, the agents of the can- Amendment which the House will have didates against whom he voted. There to decide upon is that which proposes will be an animus in their testimony, that the Bill shall only continue in operaand it is not at all unlikely that they may tion until 1880. I hope and trust that institute proceedings against him on ac- your Lordships will insist on that Amendcount of personal or political hostility ment; but I would point out that if we towards him. I trust, therefore, your agree to the Motion of the noble Duke Lordships will consider seriously before and retain the optional Ballot we shall you waive this Amendment. I must re- be cutting away the strongest argument mind your Lordships that this part of we have for adhering to the Amendment the Bill has never been submitted to the for rendering the operation of the Bill country. Noble Lords opposite may tell temporary. We introduced this clause, us that your Lordships' decision may in- as I understood, on the ground that there volve an appeal to the country; but I is so much doubt as to how secret voting think no stronger reason could be urged might work that it would be imprudent for insisting upon the Amendment than to establish this system permanently till that before a measure is passed which, its effects had been fairly ascertained by according to the noble Marquess oppo- experiment. But if this is our object in site, must be of a penal character if it making the operation of the Bill temis to be worth anything, the opinion of porary, we must take care that the exthe country should be taken upon it. periment is fairly tried in such a form Your Lordships' House will be able to as will satisfy the supporters and advotake that constitutional view of the ques-cates of the system, which will not be tion. No doubt your Lordships have no power to resist the opinion of the country when plainly expressed. Whether in the case of the Irish Church Act or of the Irish Land Act we have seen your Lordships yield to the expressed opinion of the country even against your strong convictions, and I feel satisfied that you would yield in the present instance were you convinced that by doing so you would be acting in accordance with the views of the majority of the people of this country. Your Lordships are here to watch over and to maintain the liberties of Englishmen, and in the discharge of that duty you are bound to refuse to sanction a provision which has not yet received the approval of the people. We have no desire to delay the passing of this measure; all that we desire is to delay the passing of this particular provision until the opinion of the people of this country has been taken with regard to it and in doing so we shall be occupying an unassailable and a constitutional position. EARL GREY: My Lords, having had an opportunity when we were considering the Bill in Committee of stating my reasons for objecting to what has been called voluntary secrecy, I will not abuse The Duke of Marlborough the case unless secrecy be made compulsory. Therefore, upon that ground, if upon no other, I should feel bound to vote against the Motion of the noble Duke. I must add that I heard with some astonishment from the noble Duke who has just sat down (the Duke of Marlborough) that it is not the wish of himself or his noble Friends to delay the settlement of this question. If that is not their desire, I am utterly at a loss to comprehend how they can propose the insertion of this Amendment, because it is notorious to every one of your Lordships, as it is to me, that to insist upon this Amendment will necessarily be fatal to the Bill. EARL RUSSELL said, he thought he might venture to address their Lordships on the present occasion, his attention having been directed to the subject of the Ballot for more than 40 years. When in 1831 the Ministry of the late Earl Grey was formed on the principle of introducing the question of Parliamentary Reform as a Ministerial question, he was one of a Committee of the Ministers to whom was committed the charge of drawing up the scheme of the first Reform Bill. The proposals of that Committee contained a recommendation of the Ballot. When Earl Grey spoke | law was passed by which a voter might go to him of the scheme, he said that while to a public office and ask for an envelope the Cabinet cordially approved of the in which he might enclose his vote, and measure as a whole, there was one part thus if he chose keep the way in which of it to which they could by no means he voted a secret. That was, if anyassent-namely, the Ballot. He (Earl thing, an "optional Ballot"-the secrecy Grey) asked him (Earl Russell) whether was in the absolute power of the voter he attached much importance to the point, himself. At the end of three or four and whether he was willing to give it years some curious people wished to up? His answer was that in fact he know how many of those envelopes had had used every argument to induce the been taken, and whether any great Committee not to insert the Ballot in number of the electors had chosen to their proposals. The suggestion of the vote secretly. It was found that very Ballot was consequently omitted from the few, if any, of the electors had taken Reform Bill which he (Earl Russell) those envelopes or chosen to vote seintroduced in the House of Commons, cretly. The law was therefore repealed, and it never appeared in any of the sub- and everyone voted openly. No doubt, sequent Bills. Since that time he had open voting gave opportunity for inwatched all the discussions that had been timidation, but in his opinion the sysraised upon the Ballot question, and had tem embodied in the present measure taken part in some, and had seen no would increase personation, would inground for changing the opinions he crease bribery, would increase fraud entertained 40 years ago. The late Sir and falsehood of every kind-indeed, in Robert Peel was as much opposed to the whatever light secret voting was viewed Ballot as Earl Grey. Many noble Lords it seemed a bad system-it was nothing would remember the speech of wonderful but an increased power of corruption argumentative force and eloquence which in every direction. It would encourage he (Sir Robert Peel) delivered against falsehood, for it was quite possible Mr. Grote's Motion in 1838. The reuslt under the Ballot that a voter might of the debate on that occasion was that be intimidated by his landlord into prothe Motion of Mr. Grote was rejected mising his vote, but having the power by a majority of 117. The present to vote would secretly vote against his Prime Minister had eight or nine times promise. He would then go to his landvoted against the Ballot in the House lord and say "I voted as you asked of Commons. It was therefore with no me-I quite agree in your opinions, and little surprise that he (Earl Russell) have voted with you." It was some heard the year before last that Mr. Glad- such argument as this that Mr. Grote stone had suddenly announced that he put forward in proof of the value of the had become a convert to it. The reason Ballot in checking the influence of the given for this sudden conversion was landlord and employer, and he maintwo-fold-first, that secret voting had tained that the tenant would be perfectly been adopted all over the world; and, justified in acting in this way. It secondly, that now every adult person seemed, however, to him (Earl Russell) in England had the right of voting. that though the intimidation might fail These two reasons were, no doubt, as to the actual vote, the Ballot would plausible; but the allegations on which introduce a new form of fraud and disthey rested were totally inaccurate. With trust, which would not be much preregard to the first it was far from being ferable to the old-fashioned intimidatrue that the Ballot had been intro- tion. The Englishman's privilege of duced all over the world. It had not public voting should be as sacredly been adopted even in all our own colo- respected-he should have the same nies. The good sense of the people of right of voting openly as he had by the the Dominion had refused to accept its existing law :-and at least there was no introduction in Canada, and, if he did reason why the elector of Old England not mistake, the usage of secret voting should be deprived of a privilege of had not been practically adopted in open voting which was enjoyed by our great colony of Victoria. Secret the voter of New England. It seemed Ballot did not really exist in half of the to him a great argument in support of States of the American Union. In the open voting that a man who was deNew England State of Massachusetts a sirous of promoting some great public VOL. CCXII. [THIRD SERIES.] 2 C disguise of "Debates in the Senate of Lilliput," and the notes of the speeches were prefixed by fictitious names. He remembered, in his own time, seeing the Serjeant-at-Arms bring before the House a man whom he found taking notes in the Gallery. Since that time, we had gone on introducing more and more publicity in the transaction of public affairs. The debates in Parliament were reported day by day, under the real names of the speakers, and were openly discussed the next morning in the journals throughout the kingdom. The proceedings of the Courts of Law were public, and the man who was called upon to give evidence in a Court of Law was not allowed the shelter of secrecy even where-as was too often the case in Ireland-his giving evidence might be attended with risk to his life. No exemptions were made—all questions affecting life and property were decided in public. Yet it was now proposed that if a man came to the pollingbooth and said-"I wish to vote for Lord Enfield," so essential was secrecy in the performance of public duty, that the open declaration of a man's wish and opinion by an officer in the pollingbooth was declared to be a disgrace and a crime. We declared that publicity must be the rule of our Law Courts whatever the consequences. In one of our Courts, presided over by a Member of that House, cases arose of which the publicity was injurious to morality, and offensive to decency:-nevertheless, no exception was made. Proposals had been made that in the Divorce Court the proceedings might be taken in secrecy, if the Judge should think fit; but no-the noble and learned Lord who presided over that Court approved publicity; and by means of that publicity all persons might read the details of these trials in the public journals. At whatever cost, the law must be administered in public:-but when you came to the election of the lawgivers-secrecy was so essential in the performance of this form of public duty question-of something that would improve the condition of his fellow-creatures-was more likely than any other man to wish to give his vote openly, and would be proud of proclaiming his support of a candidate who held large and philanthropic views. When Sir Samuel Romilly was engaged in his endeavours to mitigate the severity of our criminal code and was a candidate for Westminster, an elector, sympathizing with his efforts, was proud to say-"I vote for Samuel Romilly." Why should a voter not be allowed to proclaim his sympathy with a man whose life was devoted to mitigate the sufferings of his fellow-men? Or again-when Wilberforce stood before the great constituency of Yorkshire, the champion of the abolition of slavery throughout the world-a great and noble aspiration!-surely the electors should not be prohibited from proclaiming openly, in the face of all men" I vote for Mr. Wilberforce and the emancipation of the human race!" This Bill would make the revelation of his vote an offence and a crime on the part of the official persons who were in the polling-booth at the time. It was provided by this Bill that the voter, having secretly marked his vote on the ballot-paper and folded it up so as to conceal his vote, should place it in a closed box. There was, indeed, no penalty on the voter for telling his vote, but every officer, clerk, and agent in attendance at a polling-station, who should communicate at any time, to any person, any information obtained in a polling-station as to the candidate for whom any voter in such station was about to vote, or had voted, would be liable, on summary conviction before two justices of the peace, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months, with or without hard labour. He felt ashamed that such a proposition should have come up from the other House. Surely it was a degradation to which the country would never submit. As to the allegation that every adult man in England had the right of voting, it was allowed by Mr. Gladstone himself not to be an accurate statement, and he rebuked Mr. Disraeli for supposing that every man who married had the right of voting. He must, in addition, point out that our whole progress for the last century and a-half had been in favour of publicity. There was a time.when the proceedings of Parliament were published under the Earl Russell the vote must be so entirely in the bosom of the voter-that it was impossible that publicity could be allowedthe vote must be given in secret. The man who was in office in the booth, and heard a person say "I vote for Lord Enfield," or "I vote for Lord George Hamilton," was liable to six months' imprisonment. This was "I have availed myself of the earliest oppor. tunity of resorting to your advice and assistance after the dissolution of the late Parliament. Having had recourse to that measure for the purpose of ascertaining the sense of my people on the expediency of a reform in the representation, I have now to recommend that important question to your earliest and most attentive consideration, confident that in any measures which you may prepare for its adjustment, you will carefully adhere to the acknowledged principles of the Constitution, by which the prerogative of the Crown. the authority of both Houses of Parliament, and the rights and liberties of the people are equally simply monstrous. The people of Eng- | him was listened to with the respect land had for hundreds of years been and attention which his great political free to go to the poll and say "I vote experience deserved; but he would for such and such a man because I look not attempt to follow him-they were upon him as the most fit." But this was not discussing the general principle no longer to be allowed-secrecy, not of the Bill, to which question the freedom of voting, was henceforth to be noble Earl's remarks formed a valuable the rule. He would not go into the contribution; but he would trouble question of the ulterior results of secret their Lordships for a very few minutes voting, but he did not believe it would upon a question to which the Amendlong stand alone. Probably it would ment under discussion gave rise. The lead in no very long time to universal Amendment was to omit the word suffrage. He could not forbear from "secretly," and the noble Duke said quoting the language of the Administra- the effect of that Amendment would be tion of Earl Grey in reference to the to substitute optional open voting for great plans for Parliamentary Reform compulsory secret voting. Now, no they had laid before Parliament. In doubt, great benefits resulted from open 1831 there appeared the following pas- voting. Many thought that each voter sage in the Speech from the Throne:- should declare openly who he voted for, and have his vote recorded by the election officer in such a manner that the whole community knew how the vote was given; and others thought great benefits would result from secret voting. But to be beneficial the voting must be entirely open or completely secret. The great advantages followed from open Voting in such a manner that all the Voter's great merit of open voting was that it brought to bear upon each individual the opinion of the commuuity. But if the clause were allowed to stand as was proposed by the noble Duke, the voter would go to the poll and would mark the voting paper, and having folded it up would put it into the ballot-box. No human being would from that time know for certain how he had voted except the person to whom he had shown it before putting it into the box. That could not be called open voting. It might be said that if it were shown to one person all the world would know; and he recollected a legal joke, that if "tell one woman" were substituted for "know all men," all the world would soon be made acquainted with the matter. But publicity was not certain with optional secrecy - especially in the case of bribery. Suppose a man who had always voted "yellow' thought he would try "blue" for a consideration, he would fill up his paper blue, and having shown it to the man who was to bribe him would put it in the box, thereby covering his treason from all his friends and acquaintances. Surely a system which allowed that combined the evils of both secret and open voting? It was open when it ought to be secret, and it was secret when it ought to be secured." That was firm and clear language. No such language was heard in these days -on the contrary, when a question arose affecting the hereditary rights of their Lordships, the Prime Minister said"He would think once, twice, or thrice before touching such a question." That, however, was not the course adopted by the people of England upon a recent occasion. When the people of England found that the life of the Heir to the Throne was in peril, they did not think thrice, or twice, or even once; but by one unanimous voice, as if impelled by instinct, in supplication for the Heir to the Throne, they put up prayers to Heaven for his recovery. It was not by measures of this kind, but feelings such as those which animated the whole people during that crisis and which he trusted would ever be the sentiment of the people of England - that the Constitution could be preserved, and the rights and liberties of the people secured. LORD PENZANCE said, he was extremely glad that he had sat down at the instance of the noble Earl (Earl Russell), because all which fell from loud cries for a division. open. It was open when it ought to be | way classes might protect themselves, if secret, because it enabled a man to show they thought fit, without altering the his vote; and it was secret when it whole character of our elections, and should be open, because it prevented the imposing secrecy upon all, where it community from knowing what the voter was not desired, for the benefit of the had done. It seemed to him that such few. a system should not be placed in the hands of the country, because it allowed bribery to be committed with the greatest ease and secrecy. Although he had EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I never been a staunch voter for the Bal- can hardly help thinking that this clalot, and although the noble Earl (Earl mour for an early division shows that Russell) had fired a shot at him by your Lordships can scarcely be aware of way of anticipation of a personal nature, the gravity of the decision you are about yet he would not delay the House by to arrive at. I have listened attentively going into the main question, and would to the speeches of the noble Lords who be contented with the expression of a have taken part in this debate, and, hope that the voting should be either with the exception of a noble Relative of secret or open, and not such a system as my own who has just sat down, I have would combine the evils of both systems. not heard one single word in favour of THE EARL OF HARROWBY said, the Amendment to which your Lordships that he thought justice had not been are now asked to adhere. The noble done to the proposal for optional voting Duke opposite-adopting a habit which which had been adopted by the House. I think is not a very good one-referring He had no favour toward the Ballot to some remarks of Mr. Gladstone withsystem, compulsory or optional. In any out having any authoritative version of form it was a shabby system, unworthy the words, quoted a sentence which of a free people, an attempt to lower divorced from its context might seem to down the institutions to the habits, in- imply that Mr. Gladstone had spoken stead of raising the habits of the people sneeringly of your Lordships' House. to their institutions. But the proposal The only passage in Mr. Gladstone's for an optional Ballot was not a mockery. speech that I remember as affording the There were, perhaps, three classes most slightest foundation for such a statement exposed to the influence of undue pres- was a remark which he made as to the sure or intimidation, and they might all, shortness of the time in which your if they wished it, adopt an optional Lordships had destroyed and disfigured a Ballot for their protection. Take the Bill which had been so carefully conworkmen employed in numbers in great sidered by the House of Commons. I manufacturing shops-and of whom it remember perfectly well how we were was said that, under a system of open told last year that we could not consider voting, they were much exposed to pres- the principle of the Ballot, because it sure from their employers. With an was impossible to find time to discuss a optional Ballot, why should not they subject which, although it had been for agree among themselves, in a mass to 40 years before the public and the House adopt the protection offered by Parlia- of Commons was a novelty to the House ment, and tell their employers that they of Lords; and I remember that one had agreed among themselves to do so; noble Lord, speaking with an earnestand what fear of their employers would ness and sincerity which we all apprethey entertain? The same as to trades-ciate, said that, on the best calculation, men. Why should not the tradesmen it would take three weeks or a month to of Oxford Street, or Bond Street, who pass it through Committee. Well, what were often said to be tormented by their was the result? Your Lordships found lady customers, proclaim that they, as a yourselves prepared to deal very sumbody, intended to ask the same protec-marily with the measure, and finished tion? Who could quarrel with them? in one short evening what had occupied Even by the tenants or extensive landed so much attention in the other House, estates, why should not the same principle of associated action be adopted? They would be quite safe, no landlord would quarrel with a tenantry if they came to the same conclusion. In that Lord Penzance I do not think that such an observation as that made by Mr. Gladstone upon this circumstance can fairly be described as a sneer upon your Lordships' House. Now, my Lords, I repeat that I have |