parliament; and that by means to which no artifice can attach the idea either of difficulty or danger. The change of open into secret voting excites no disturbance; weakens the security of no man's rights; takes away no influence of property, except its immoral influence: while it is attended with two effects of unspeakable importance; it brings into action the only security for good government; and it puts an end to the most demoralizing traffic between the leading men of the community and the body of the people, that ever had existence upon the face of the earth.

The language which some of them sometimes employ to meet, and resist all this body of evidence is truly astonishing. If it was not seen, it would not be credible, that men could be found who without any necessity would stand up and shew such weakness.

"The ballot is not English;" that is one of their phrases, in speaking against it. Why not English? Upon what ground do you take upon you to refuse the use of the term "English" in conjunction with the word "ballot?" If the ballot be a necessary means to the most important of all ends, and the word "English" is not applicable to it, the word "English" is then not applicable to one of the best of things-that is all. But the word "English," we suppose, is truly applicable to the system of suborning, and prostituting, votes, by which the character of Englishmen is depraved, and the interests of the English nation are trafficked away; and if so, it is applicable to one of the worst of things, Assuredly, the men who treat the word " English” in this fashion, are not the men who use it with the greatest honour.

The state of mind, however, of the man who, in the great council of the nation, when a solemn question is opened, whether a certain expedient is or is not necessary to secure the best interests of the community, gets up and pretends to terminate the whole deliberation, by refusing the application of the word "English," must be regarded through all time as a curiosity.

This is a new test of good and evil. In point of handiness, it certainly would be, if fit to be trusted, a very desirable one. Is any man in doubt, at any time, about the goodness or badness of any thing. Only touch it with the word "English": immediately, as when the Devil was touched by the spear of Ithuriel, it starts up in its real shape and dimensions; and all uncertainty about it is dispelled. There is, however, one objection to it, and that a serious one. It would supersede the use of wisdom, in the great council of the nation; and would entirely

put an end to the veneration which is now, on account of its wisdom, so justly bestowed upon that august assembly, by all who enjoy the spectacle of its proceedings, or have the happiness of tasting their effects.

We fear also it is a test, the use of which ought to be confined to the privileged hands; for if the people were allowed to apply it, as well as their rulers, there might be strange diversity. That might appear very English to the one, which would be very un-English to the other. For example, the people might think every thing which was really good toward saving them from the curse of misrule, was most perfectly English; and of course the ballot itself, if it was a thing of that admirable tendency. They might be led the more easily into that mistake, in respect to the ballot, by observing what is the English practice; that the ballot universally obtains where those, who have the power of determining the mode of voting, have a real interest, however slight, in the freedom and independence of the votes.

The men who themselves are in the habit of using the ballot, on small and on great occasions, during the whole course of their lives, stand up and say to an assembly of men who are all doing the same thing, that they ought to reject the ballot in parliamentary elections, because it is not English! Did we not speak true, when, towards the beginning of this discourse, we said, that the pleas of the enemies of the ballot had not even the look of honest arguments? that it was impossible to consider them as any thing but the pretexts; which must be found, when a position, which canot be supported by reason, is to be maintained in spite of it?

Among the opponents of the ballot in parliament are some who cannot so much be said to argue, as to groan, and use inarticulate cries against it. Of this kind are those who say, They hope that they shall not live to witness the time, when Englishmen shall not have the spirit to deliver their vote in the face of day. It would be as honest, and about as wise, to say, they hope not to live to witness the time, when every Englishman shall not have his carriage and pair. If they were to say, which would be the only thing to the purpose, that they hoped not to live to see the day when an Englishman would not go to the hustings, and fearlessly vote for the man of his choice, without regard to the dictation of any person upon earth; the falsehood of the pretext would be too glaring to be successful, even in a country where as much is done by hypocrisy as in England. It is matter of fact, notorious and undisputed, that a great majority of those who vote for members of parliament in England, proceed to the hustings under the influence of what they

either hope to receive, or dread to suffer, and prostitute themselves in the most infamous manner, by voting, not according to the dictates of their own minds, but like crouching slaves, at the will of another. Are these the circumstances in which votes are commonly given in England, and are men found who say they hope not to live to see the day when Englishmen will be afraid to vote openly? Patience would be found to hear them, in no assembly, we think, upon earth, but one composed of the very men who suborn such votes. Courage to vote as Englishmen vote, at the command of those by whom they are bought, or driven, is the courage of the slave, when he lends his body to the lash. Are there men, who pretend a horror at the prospect of parting with this, and receiving in exchange for it the protec tion of secrecy, because secrecy would degrade the people?

A wish for elevating the minds of the people is an admirable wish, and the profession of it is truly a pretty profession; but the true character of the profession is known by the character of the things which follow. Is the wish not to see Englishmen vote secretly, a wish that Englishmen should have sufficient independence of mind to vote as they please, though all the world should know in what manner they vote? We also entertain that wish most fervently. We have another strong wish; that all Englishmen were above being paupers. We apprehend, however, it would little answer any good purpose for us to use the formula of those who level their wishes against the ballot, and say, they hope not to live to see the day when Englishmen will live upon charity. Poverty makes the people of England willing to live on charity. Dependent circumstances make them willing to prostitute their votes. Your choice lies between prostitute voting and secret voting. There is the deepest degradation in prostitute voting. Not only is there no degradation in secret voting, but it saves from all the degradation inseparable from prostitute voting; all men, therefore, who deprecate the degradation of the people, not with hypocrisy, but in earnest, are of course the advocates of the ballot.

But, on what authority, we shall be asked, do we make the assertion, that there is no degradation in secret voting? On the authority, we reply, of those very men who say that there is. What! do the same men, who say that secret voting is degrading, say also that it is not degrading? They do; as you, and as they, and as all men, are perfectly aware. You see them constantly practising the ballot, and introducing the use of ballot, without a thought of self-degradation, wherever it is really their wish that the vote should be protected from external influence. In order to protect themselves from the trifling incon

venience of displeasing somebody, by black-balling an improper candidate for admission into a club, they themselves take the benefit of secret voting. Can there be a more perfect proof that they do not regard it as degrading? Can there be a more perfect proof that when they refuse to the honest voter for a member of parliament the same protection against far more serious consequences, on the pretence that it is degrading, they are not sincere? Observe, too, the difference of the ends. That improper members may not be admitted into a club, the secret voting is needful in the one case. That improper members may not be admitted into the legislature, it is needful in the other. Do you dare to say, that the use of it is not degrading in the former of these two cases, that it is degrading in the latter? That the end sanctifies the means in the former case, not in the latter?

"I cannot abide muffling up," says one honourable gentleman; and by such an appeal to sentimentality, manfully proposes to decide one of the most important questions of legislation. If a great end is to be gained by muffling up, why should there not be muffling up? The nature of the pretext is so manifest, that it would seem not to be worth exposing; and yet there are persons for whose sake it may be proper to attract a little attention to it. If there were any argument in these words, it would rest upon this, that all secrecy is bad. If some secrecy is good, the man who says he does not like it, renders us one good service; he gives us full warning against taking him for a guide. Every body knows, this honourable gentleman knows, that, in itself, secrecy is neither good, nor bad. It is good, when it is the means to a good end; bad, when it is the means to a bad end. It is not base in the General, it is meritorious, to "muffle up" his designs from the enemy. The more perfectly he can, by concealment, stratagem, dissimulation, guile, delude their expectation, the more is he admired. It is not base in negotiation for the statesman to conceal with the utmost care the extent of the concessions he would make, rather than fail in the attainment of his object. Every government makes a point of concealing such part of its proceedings, and, as far as possible, such particulars in the national affairs, as it would be detrimental to the nation to let other nations know. If it be detrimental to the nation, that the mode should be known in which a man gives his vote for a member of parliament, that also, for the same reason, ought most assuredly to be kept from being known. One is ashamed to feel oneself obliged to contend against such puerilities.

There are some persons, who make a bold use of certain asser

tions with regard to the American United States, in opposition to the ballot. Some people have been there, and on the strength of a drive through the country, performed in a few months, give us their assurance, that, in the United States, the ballot does not answer expectation. Others have derived the same insight from conversations had with people of the United States.-What is the value of such assertions? Just nothing at all. Vague, hazarded declarations, respecting the interior and hidden working of the institutions of a foreign country, put forth in a debate to silence an adversary, declarations no man would repose even the smallest confidence in, if the question regarded a matter, about the truth of which he was really in earnest; the prudence, or imprudence, for example,of investing his fortune in the United States. He would go to other evidence, than the second-hand testimony of the one, or the reports, delivered by the other, of what was seen by the eyes, respecting a thing not to be understood by the eyes. This, in itself, is a point of importance. It cannot be passed without notice. It is not generally understood of how very small a number of men the statements, respecting countries they have seen, can be received with moderate reliance. The number of accurate observers in the world is exceedingly small. It is well known to all those persons who have occasion for accurate information, to judges, for example, and others, who take evidence in courts of justice, how inconsiderable the proportion of persons is who see and hear accurately, or can, by the utmost exertion of their wills, give a true account of some ordinary and not very complicated scene, in which they have been present. The merit of the judge consists, not in relying upon the statement of one witness, or the statement of another, but in confronting the statements, and from the knowledge he has of the laws of human nature, and the order of human transactions, divining the truth.

If such is the inferiority of individual testimony in the ordinary transactions of ordinary life, what must it be in the accounts we receive of countries and nations ? Here the men who have occasion for accurate knowledge; the historian, for example, of a country, the state of which he is obliged to expound to readers who have but little previous acquaintance with it have most remarkable experience of the necessity of the deductive process, in order to arrive at the truth. It is not this or that man's testimony, but the result of all the testimonies, which affords any sure ground of reliance. Individual testimony here is beyond measure less perfect than that which is delivered before the judge; both because it relates to matters, of which it is infinitely more difficult to give correct testimony, and because it is