The Press. — London, England, 1854-06-17 00:00:00

f - 556 trary process we know not what plea can be put forward : never before did selfishness go the length of saying, " Tax my neighbour, for he is almost bankrupt ; but spare me, for I am getting on well in business." Yet this, and nothing else, is the argument by which the stamp duty is defended by its most able, if not most zealous, apolo gist. But it is said, and the cry is too popular not to be readily taken up, that an unstamped press must be a licentious press. We only ask in return, why ? Are all existing and flourishing journals pure from this taint? Does the stamp duty act as an enforce ment of public or private morality ? Doubtless a Arent change has taken place of late years—a change, not due to the operation of any law, but solely to the improved taste of the people. Of this no man can fail to be convinced who compares the political writing of fifty years ago with that of the present time. But the plea here put forward destroys itself by its very exaggeration. Some cheap newspapers may be abusive and violent, therefore all cheap newspapers are to be forbidden. As well contend that, because some men abuse their freedom, there fore all should be shut up in gaols; that., because some apply the power of reading and writing to bad purposes, therefore popular instruction should pot be encouraged. This is the old, exploded cry about the dangers of knowledge. Admit that the press may be employed by demagogues—will none except demagogues employ it? If so, the fault rests with those who might be, and who will not be, the teach ers of the people. But we believe that political agi tation is the last subject to which, in ordinary times, the labouring class are likely to apply themselves. They have not leisure—they have not the wish—to meddle with affairs of State. And, if they possess strong political sympathies—which, as a rule, we doubt—is it not well that those who govern England should know something of their feelings ? Macaulay said, wisely, " It is not that which comes out of the public mind, but that which stays in it, and finds no vent, that is dangerous." Working men are unrepre sented. It is not easy to see how, as a class, they can ever be represented without swamping, by the weight of uneducated numbers, every other order in the State. We cannot, therefore, gather their opinions at the hustings, except when a drunken mob breaks the head of a candidate or sets fire to a polling booth. They are debarred from political action. Is it not wise to provide some means by which those who have to act may understand their wants? In all societies there must be some real and many fancied grievances. And these will find exponents. Are they likely to be set forth less temperately, or with more admixture of personal bitterness, in the de liberately-written exposition of the journalist than in the passionate improvisation of a Chartist orator? Those who object to working-men's newspapers ought to interfere for the prevention of such meet ings as those lately held at Preston. Yet the Lan cashire millowners themselves did justice to the good temper and moderation displayed by the thousands out "on strike." We have so far accepted our opponents' view of this question as to assume with them that the point in dispute is, whether cheap political writing shall exist or no. But in truth this is not at issue. No law prohibits the periodical appearance, unstamped, of comments on political topics, no matter how violent, false, or foolish. Atheism, Red Republicanism, or gross immorality, may be published weekly almost without restraint or danger ; for political prosecutions are notoriously an unsafe expedient to resort to, tending, as they do, to increase the no toriety, and thus the influence, of the offender. We do not choose to dwell on this topic, which is, more over, obvious ; but to any one who has a curiosity to look into the subject we could offer abundant evi dence that the stamp duty does not prevent the diffusion of the most extravagant political specula tions ; none the less mischievous for being extra vagant. What the law does, is to impede the publication of facts and passing events,—that is to say, of those practical realities which are at least harmless, and the knowledge of which may act as some check on purely fanciful ideas of government. But enough on an exhausted theme. The Right Hon. Henry Tufnell died on Thursday at Catton hall, Derbyshire, thus closing a long official and parliamentary career. Mr. Tufnell was private secretary to Sir It. Wilmot Horton, the governor of Ceylon, and afterwards to Lord Minto, when that nobleman was First Lord of the Admiralty. He was one of the Lords of the Treasury tthder Lord Mel bourne's Administration, and on the formation of Lord John Russell's Government in 1846 became Secretary to the Treasury, which office declining health obliged him to resign in 1850. Mr. Tufnell represented De• von port from 1840 up to the present session, when he resigned his seat. Caoss POSTS IN IRELAND would seem capable of much improvement. According to the Carlow Sentinel, a letter putin at Carlow addressed to Nevrtownhary, seventeen miles distant, is first sent to Dublin—fifty six miles ; then by coach to Ferns—seventy miles further; and thews to Newtownberry—seven nules ; . all. 133 miles. THE PRESS. Vrotttbings xn arlianunt. THE BALLOT. Mr. H. BERKELEY, unwearied by a succession of annual defeats, or by successes in preliminary divisions, which led to nothing practical, and were, perhaps, still more tantalising, renewed on Tuesday night his efforts to persuade the House of Commons to get itself hereafter elected by ballot•voting. His proposition this year took the form of a motion for leave to bring in a bill for his desiderated object. It was supported by the hon. member with his well. worn arguments, with which the Legislature for many a session past has become thoroughly saturated, but nevertheless consented to listen to their repetition with somewhat more complacency than usual, because Mr. Berkeley judiciously con trived to enliven his " old saws " with a copious cita tion of " modern instances." His anecdotes of elec toral corruption and intimidation were numerous and piquantly told, and were highly relished by the members around him, even though they failed to in fluence probably a single vote in favour of the conclusion at which they were pointed. Mr. Berkeley, it may be remarked, spoke on this occa sion from the front Opposition bench. His chain of argument consisted of the usual links. He first combatted the argument against the ballot founded on the assertion that the electoral franchise was a trust, and not a right. That privilege, he urged, was in truth a personal attribute appertaining to every voter, and limited only by two conditions—that it should be unpurchased and unforced. These con ditions he then went 'on to contend could be fulfilled in the best, if not the only, manner by the con trivance of the ballot. He strengthened this con clusion by quoting a multitude of examples offered in America, Belgium, Holland, Switzerland, and France, which, he said, testified to the success attained by the ballot system wherever it was adopted for the purpose of rendering elections peace able, orderly, and honest. To the ballot, he ob served, France owed the first choice of her present Emperor and the existing stability of her throne and government. The circumstance that the Ministerial Reform Bill was postponed afforded, he said, no reason why the ballot should not be conceded at once. That bill held out no promise of protection to the voter. Arguing that the opposition to the ballot originated in an extreme reluctance to forego political power, however acquired, Mr. Berkeley quoted the opinions of Defoe and Macaulay in its favour, and then proceeded to show by many instances the utter inutility of penal enactments, bribery oaths, or other legal machinery, designed for the suppression of corruption and intimidation at elections. Open voting, he argued, resulted in an array of horrors, and he called upon the house, with out considering it a party question, to vote for the ballot as being the sole means of securing to the electors of the country perfect freedom of consience. Mr. Berkeley concluded his speech with an anec dote, which he had evidently reserved for his climax, in illustration of the "horrors" consequent upon the present system : " The case was one of the moat frightful intimidation, which no law could reach. The transaction occurred at the general election in 1841, but he bad never been able to make it public until this moment, having bound him self not to do so until the death of one of the parties. He might be permitted to say that he believed also that neither of the candidates knew anything of the transaction, and he was sure they were such honourable men that they would have looked upon it with indignation. It appeared that a master tradesman, an active Conservative, in a cer tain borough, voted for the Liberal candidate, and influ enced his tenants and workmen to do the same. That tradesman did not hesitate to say that he had been intimi dated into so doing by a man of property to whom he owed a large sum of money. But the strangest part of the case was this, that the creditor, who was a country gentleman residing in a distant county, was also a very strong Conserva tive. He would now point out the kind of screw by which the Conservative was compelled by another Conservative to support the Liberal candidate. The creditor had a sister, well married and settled in the borough where the debtor resided. One day previous to the election an attorney called upon the lady and produced a packet of letters, saying By the death of a client of mine these letters have come into my possession ; you know them to have been written by you previous to your marriage—look at them— if they fall into your husband's possessior, ruin and dis grace will attend you and your children. I know that your brother has advanced large sums of money to a man in this town. I must have that man's vote and influence for the Liberal candidate, or your husband shall have these letters.' (Hear, hear.) That base election agent applied to that unhappy lady the screw of ruin—the sister had recourse to the screw of compassion —the brother applied to the debtor the creditor's screw—the debtor applied to his workmen the master and landlord's screw—and thus an atrocius ramification of election screws was made use of to violate the consciences of five electo►s, and to compel them to betray the interests of their country and tell a lie before their God. (Hear, hear.) When . hon. members reflected on the wear and tear of conscience, the excess of mental anguish involved in that horrible conspiracy—when they knew that it had been carried out under the system of SATURDA open voting, and that it could not have happned u sys. tern of secret voting—he thoughtit would s e carcely nder be a pe e . sible for them to hesitate between the two systems. ( Hear.) It might be said that this was an extreme case. A wee abhorrent case it certainly was---so abhorrent that it mu s t be perfectly condemnatory of the system under which it could take place. But it was useless to talk of the cas e which he had mentioned as an extreme case, when it could be matched by cases of tenants ejected, and their families starving—of tradesmen discharged and their business shattered—of debtors consigned to prison —and of an array of other horrors which had at different times been brought forward in evidence, leading to the conclusion that the most gross tyranny existed under the system of open voting, and that the poor voters were too frequently brought into an abject state of misery and humiliation under its withering influence. (Hear, hear.)" Lord DUDLEY STUART, who seconded the motion, expressed his persuasion that no reform could be complete which did not include the ballot, and no Reformer sincere who did not advocate its adop tion. Mr. WARNER also believed that the ballot was the only true specific against intimidation. Lord PALMERSTON was not insensible to the ad. vantages which would accrue from any system that would provide an effectual remedy against intimida tion, bribery, or the employment of undue influence at elections. But his first objection to the ballot was, that it would utterly fail in ensuring its main result—namely, secrecy : "No contrivance could be devised that would prevent the opinions and votes of a great majority of electors from being as fully known under the ballot as under the system of open voting. In the United States the votes at elections were not only well known but ostentatiously avowed. Electors were too honest and too manly to refuse to de clare the names of those candidates who were identified with their own political views. To some shopkeepers and others, apprehensive that their votes might injure their interests, the ballot might seem to be a security ; but the ballot would not prevent solicitation, and the application of what was termed the screw, to extort a promise. The promise in such cases would be either given or withheld. If given and redeemed, what was the use of the ballot? If broken, what improvement would this effect in the mode of voting ? If the voter refused to promise, the inference would be that he meant to vote the other way ' • the condi • date would then act as he now did, and the ballot would be a perfect nullity." Upon abstract principles, also, he objected to the secret-voting system. It would destroy the open enunciation of opinion, the public discussion of men and measures, which formed the vitalprinciple of our political constitution. The vote, he contended, was essentially a trust; its use was at once the exercise of a right and the performance of a duty; it was given to each individual, partly for his own benefit, partly for the benefit of the nation, and should be recorded in the face of the public and under a full sense of responsibility. Members of Parliament could as reasonably require the shield of the ballot as the electors who returned them : has " a lt po is lit s i ure cal l f y u n n o e t tio to n o to m p u e e rf h o to rm, sa o y r t a h po at l e it v i e ca ri m ought to do it, subject to all the responsibility to it (Hear, hear.) lam told that there is no responsi a attachinga n t t od billy attaching to this vote, and am asked who is to be tie judge c in such higs,andthe case. hi Are theTori th e e s ?Tolrie say, s y to condemn , in answer, that there is a responsibility which every man of sense undel stands—a responsibility to public opinion. That is tl governing influence in the mind of every honest man, ea 1, for one, would never deprive him of that rudder to keep him in the right course. (Hear, hear.) It is said that every man ought to be protected from discovery. Ido not admit that I say that if a man uses his right of voting he ought to make up his mind to bear all that may be attached to it. (` Hear, hear,' and laughter.) If this system were applied to voting for members of Parliament. why should not Parliament itself adopt the same plan? (Hear, hear.) The principle would be the same although the members were different. No man will tell me that a member of this house, who has a proper feeling of his oon position, would feel it a grievance that he was not re elected because of the votes which he had given in a fie' vious session. As to the amount of injury which has been done to persons giving their votes conscientiously, I believe that great exaggeration has prevailed on that point. 1 think that in many of these instances the parties in gum tion have been men whose fortunes were decayed, and that they have cast upon their vote that which was caused by their own imprudence. The truth is, that in these casts what a man loses by his enemies he Ginss by his friends, and in the end the account was prety early balanced. Not to detain the house longer than necessary to state in generdl outline the grounds of my vote--which I never have had an opportunity of doing before-1 will conclude by stating that my objections are in short these :—I think that the ballot would not be productive of secrecy, that it would not prevent the voter from the consequences of his political acts, and that, if it did produce secrecy, and so protect the voter, it would involve consequences resulting m serious injury to the British constitution." Sir J. WALMSLEit replied to the arguments offered by the Home Secretary, and emphatically denied the assertion that the ballot was "un•English." lie declared that every extension of the franchise which did not include that system would prove a mockery. Mr. FORSTER also supported the motion, illustrating the advantages of the ballot system by the results A had produced at the elections in frapee, of whicli had been a frequent spectator. Nib