The Press. — London, England, 1858-06-19 00:00:00

THE PRESS, JUNE 19, 1858. 580 character. But we did and do protest against the assumption of the judicial office, coupled with habitual neglect of the moderate tone—the measured language —the fair construction—the discrimination, not only between guilt and inno cence, but between different degrees of culpa bility—which are due from a judge. It was long an English tradition, not yet wholly worn out, that the judge should be the advocate for the accused ; at least it cannot be contended that he should always act as counsel for the prosecution. We urged, and we again urge the Saturday Review, for its own sake as well as that of the public, to condemn less often and less severely —to reserve elaborate invectives for great offenders, and not exhaust that satiric vein, in which it is eminently wealthy, in prompting misplaced ridicule. Its able contributors may build a reputation on higher grounds than " successful hppeals to "that great spirit of human malevolence which " a sagacious author may always rely on as " existing in the breast of the public." BALLOT-MORALITY. THE brief and simple argument against the Bal lot which we stated last week, admits of but one reply, and it never receives any other. It is not, and cannot be, denied, that there is a large class of open, fearless voters, who will not conceal their thoughts or actions, and who can be in no way affected by the introduction of the ballot box. It is not, and cannot be, denied, that there is also a large class of lying, fraudulent, saleable voters, who will find the Ballot a convenient cloak for their purposes, and who will be the chief gainers by it. Your legislation, therefore, for the first of these classes would be wholly nu gatory ; and no one would seriously propose to legislate for the benefit of the second. But, between the two, there is, perhaps, a still larger class, of undecided, hesitating men, of no very positive principles, whose promises are gained by canvassing, and upon whose vacillating minds the entreaties of friends, patrons, landlords, and customers, are sure to tell with power. We maintain that these men, having given promises to those who solicited them, ought to fulfil those promises. And we entertain that opinion of our fellow-countrymen generally, which leads us to believe that the bt.lk of this class do keep their promises, and do vote as they have engaged to do. Certain we are that they ought to do so. But here comes in the advocate of the Ballot, and objects to this point of our argument. He asserts that these promises were immoral in their nature when given, and that they would be more fitly broken than kept. And it is the chief re commendation of the Ballot in his eyes, that it would enablethis class of voters to break their promises in silence and with impunity. Here, then, is the chief point of difference in our views ; and we feel bound to notice it, be- cause we hold that this view of the obligation of a promise is not only wrong in itself, but that it brings in with it a whole system of fraud and falsehood. The advocate of the Ballot, in order to strengthen his case, is always ready to assume that the class we are describing consists of men who have clear and decided notions of politics, and who are coerced by landlords and patrons to give up their own views and wishes, and to vote in direct opposition to the dictates of their own con sciences. This representation, however, is altogether a fictitious and romantic one. The men of strong conscientious convictions are usually found in the first class. They take their sides, hoist their colours, and abide by the conse quences. If they lose friends on one side, they gain friends on the other. The " squeezable" class—the men whose votes are gained by the persuasions of friends—are gene rally those who have no very decided views of their own. They arc sensible that there is " something to be said on both sides," and they consent to vote for Sir John, because they know that there is much to be advanced in his favour, and because they feel that they may as well vote for him as for the other candidate. They pro mise their votes without much difficulty or regret, and they mean to keep their promises. Now, we say that it is immoral to treat these men as not hound to fulfil their pledges, and to desire to find for them a way of breaking their promises with impunity. And we regret to see in some Dissenting journals journals which ought to maintain a high tone of morals—argu ments tending to exonerate these persons from all blame, if they break promises which, it is said, ought never to have been given. Now, religious journals may fairly be brought to the test of Holy Scripture; which furnishes us with the highest and purest code of morals that can anywhere be found. And when the Psalmist would describe an upright man, he describes him as one " that sweareth unto his " neighbour, and disappointeth him not, though " it were to his own hindrance." But we have, at the opening of the history of the children of Israel in Canaan, a special exem plification of the inviolability of a promise. It occurs at the of their invasion of Canaan. The Gibeonites, alarmed at the pro gress made by JosueA, practised deceit, told lies, and induced the children of Israel to make a treaty with them, under the pretence that they were not Canaanites, but came " from a far country." But the Israelites did not make this treaty void on the ground that it was obtained by fraud and falsehood. On the contrary, they held themselves bound by their promises, and allowed the Gibeonites to live, although, had there been no treaty, they must all have been put to death. They inflicted a punishment upon them ibr their fraud, but they did not pretend that that fraud released the conquerors from their engagements. But was not this a superstitious and foolish regard to a promise fraudulently obtained ? Is it not rather an example to be shunned, than followed ? No, it is not. For we have not only the fact, but we have GOD'S own judgment upon it, pronounced long after. The Gibeonites were appointed of GOD to be slain. But, by seducing the Israelites into a treaty of peace, they escaped this fate. Long after—the treaty having been for centuries recognized and acted upon—SAAR, chose to dis regard it, and he made an assault upon the Gibeonites. A famine was sent upon the land, and when the cause was inquired into, the Loan said, "It is for SAITL, and for his bloody house, " because he slew the Gibeonites." Now, as the Gibeonites had been, in the first instance, ap pointed of GOD to be slain, it is clear that Gon admitted the force of the treaty, and considered the Israelites to be bound by it, although obtained by fraud and falsehood. Now, with this plain Scripture teaching before us, we regret to find the Dissenters, who are the descendants of the English Puritans, endeavour ing to bring in a lower tone of morals, and to teach men that there is a certain class of pro mises which ought not to be kept, because, in the first instance, they were improperly obtained. And we are warned, by this fact, of the immoral tendency of the Ballot, and of the Ballot move ment. It is a movement in favour of lying. It is a movement of men who have no just sense of the abomination of falsehood. It is a move ment of men who hold that faith should be kept only when it suits the views of the party who has promised; and that, whenever it can be said that improper means were used to obtain the promise, there the promise, so obtained, ought not to be kept. This system makes every promise doubtful. Under such a system, there could be no reliance on the most solemn pledges; for how can I tell that he who has given me the most distinct and positive assurance that he will do a certain thing, may not afterwards bethink him self that I had used improper means to gain that assurance, and that therefore the promise is nought ! And this is the morality of the Ballot. It is upon this point, solely, that its defence and vin dication rests. It must be admitted, that for the bold and open voter the Ballot will do nothing, and that therefore, so far as he is concerned, there is no reason for introducing secret voting. It will also be conceded that we ought not to make a new law, especially to assist t ra ffi c k ers i n votes, sellers of their suffrages —men who wi s h to promise all parties, and to deceive all but one. But it will still be urged, that there are certain parties who have been induced to give promises, by influence or persuasion, and that the Ballot is wanted, to enable these parties to break their pledges. This, as we have said, is the morality of the Ballot. It is a system intended to favour, assist, and promote, promise -breaking. It is a system intended to introduce amongst us, by Statute-law, an extensive practice of giving pledges without any intention of keeping them. And hence it was, doubtless, that Mr. RANDOLPH said, that "the Ballot, if it did not find any " people a nation of scoundrels, would infallibly "make them so." kkihiIMIIMMENNMENINEmommom THE POWER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. " Tlt AT the power of the House of Commons has " increased, is increasing, and ought to be dimi " fished," is an assertion which no one will question who has observed its action of late, and has respect to the balance of the Constitution. To attempt to settle questions of grave political importance by resolutions of its own has become its almost daily practice ; and if it finds itself thwarted in any of these leaps at legislation, by the obstruction of the Government or the con stitutional veto of the Lords, the House of Com mons grows angry, and threatens the subversion of all authority that puts itself in the way of its assumed supremacy. An attempt, we believe, has recently been made to get up another " CARDWELL resolu tion," grounded on the refusal of the Ministry to abolish the office of the " General Com manding-in-C hief," at the bidding of a small majority of the II ouse of Commons. " How dare you ref use to carry into effect at once," is its language, " a vote of ours ? Know you not that we, the Commons, govern England—that we mean our voice in all cases to be obeyed ? It is our office to enact laws, and the shortest way to do this is by resolutions. It is for the other branch of the Leg islature—and especially for the Government, who exist only by sufferance from us —to put in force our will. If they refuse to do this, we will pass a vote of censure." When this becomes the bearing of the House of Commons, it is clear that we must look to a gene ral election to decide whether or not we are tending to the re-establishment of what is known in history by the name of the " Long Parliament." The chief command of the army has always been considered as one of the prerogatives rightly belonging to the Crown ; but the present House of Commons, in its adventurous boldness and self-sufficient wisdom, would take the manage ment of all departments of the State into its oim hands. Nothing is too difficult for it to settle — nothing too perilous for it t o undertake. First, it overruled by a vote of its own the new system of qualified competition, which the Military Council of Education recommended and the other military authorities adopted, for admissio n into the army. Having carried this point so easily, its next step was to vote unnecessary the 0