11 MARCH 1837, Page 15

"They had then the power of corruption and intimidation to

induce men to abstain from voting: that influence would still exist, and the ballot could ate affect it."—Mr. Spring Rice's Speech against the Ballot.

Lord HOWICK made use of the same argument ; and it was the only one adduced during the whole debate which bore at all against the efficacy of the Ballot to destroy intimidation. No doubt the landlord has the power imputed to him. But its exer- cise would be so very odious, and to be effective must be used on such a scale, that few landlords would attempt it. Few would proclaim to the world that they were at open war with their tenantry, and had resolved to disfranchise them.

But suppose that the landlord did abuse his influence by pre- venting his dependents from voting at all, even that would be pre- ferable to compulsory voting. The power of the oppressor would at any rate be crippled. The coercion would be less injurious, than if it were employed, as it now is. to force men to commit moral perjury by voting against their consciences. If the Ballot did not put au entire atop to every species of intimidation, it would, on the very showing of Mr. RICE and Lord Howie's, take away fully half of the motive to intimidate voters, by rendering compul- sion fifty per cent. less effective towards gaining an election. The first thvour a canvasser asks is the vote, the second neutrality ; the Ballot must, in the case supposed, at least insure neutrality.