The Press. — London, England, 1858-04-24 00:00:00

sider a vote simply as a marketable though they may have picked up enough of loose political phraseology to enable then. to spout at a tavern, or to shout in a 1001) for "No Lords, no Bishops, no Nothink." of course no sane man would think of bribing such loose fish as these individually, when it could never be known whether he got the vote for which he stipulated. But would such a class surrender their " septennial ale " and more solid periodical profits ? By no means. They would merely combine, and do business wholesale. A club or clubs would be formed, and the candidate would undertake to pay, " say 5001. or 1,0001." on his return, for the benefit of these confederate patriots. We have seen lately how an Irish election may be " Burked "by buying voters in the lump. The Ballot would make such transactions, which now create astonishment as well as disgust, frequent and systematic. Give us secret voting, and your Rothschild will be a formidable man indeed. And thus much as to bribery. With regard to intimidation, there is only one form of it—the priestly—which acts to a formidable, we had almost said an appreciable extent. And this would remain pretty much where it is. The priestriddeu cotter. ignorant enough to believe that his salvation depends on his voting according to another man's political views, would still stultify himself to escape everlasting punishment. As for coercing borough voters by threats of withdrawing cus tom, such proceedings are quite exceptional, and are as futile as they are rare ; the trades man who loses al customer on one side gains two on the other. Landlords, again, may occa sionally attempt coercion, but the system is generally obsolete, and will become more and more entirely so as landlords more thoroughly understand their own interests. Moreover, the attempt even when made is rarely success ful. But were intimidation as frequent and as effectual as Chartist newspapers would have us believe, secret voting would only change its form. Men who have a political creed will always profess it, and the despotic landlord, knowing pretty well wbo of his tenants were likely to vote against him, would merely re quire of them to abstain from voting at all; a less odious demand, and far more likely to be extensively successful, than that for an uncoil scientious suffrage under the present system. It appears, then, that compulsory secret voting (and we have shown that any other mode of the Ballot would be a mere nullity) would have little or no power to overthrow the evils at which it professes to strike. It remains to consider whether it would be as powerless for the production as for the re moval of mischief, or whether it would be at tended with grave moral evils, and gradually, but certainly, degrade our political morality as a nation. We believe the latter alternative to be the true one. Secret voting is an attempt to withdraw a citizen in his character of voter from the operation of laws to which as a moral agent he is generally liable. Trust naturally implies responsibility—to the laws in many oases, to public opinion almost universally. And well that it is so Fear of punishment— fear of publicity—though not the highest, are the moat widely-felt restraints on breach of trust, as on all other kinds of wrongdoing. And it will hardly be denied that a vote for a Member of Parliament is a trust, and a grave one. It would bs so even had we what is termed " manhood suffrage "—much more is it so now that a limited number of electors choose representatives for our whole popula tion. At all events, the leaders of the Ballot movement have stopped themselves from denying that it is so. They have striven hard (to their honour be it said) to punish bribery, both in the buyer and the bought, though in different degrees—wherefore, if a voter is not responsible to the public for the use of his franchise? Logically speaking, what can be more inconsistent than to admit the suffrage to be a trust—to declare the abuse of that trust penal—and then to contrive machinery for securing such abuse against the possibility of detection? The politician, who one day inveighs against the traffic in votes and the next clamours for the Ballot, can only main tain his sincerity at the expense of his under standing. But to return to the moral ques tion, or rather to look into it a little deeper. Tll E PRE S S, APRIL 24,, 185 S. What is the value of tho hack phrase that " voters require to be protected in the exercise "of the franchise " 9 Are they to be protected in well-doing, or in ill-doing? If the Ballot can protect them, we have shown that it will do so more effectually in the latter than the former. Now, impunity to wrongdoers is an unmixed evil ; but even could it be proved that a voter under the present system is oc• casionally subjected to inconveniences and hardships, which the Ballot would avert or diminish, are these also an unmixed evil? We think not--some occasional suffering for conscience' sake is not only one of the general conditions of an honest and upright career, but it is also no inconsiderable part of our moral training. Tho strictly fair-dealing trader— the scrupulous politician—give up something to maintain their principles in short, every man who adopts a high moral or religious standard will have something to endure from those who walk by lower rules; but such en durance trains them to firmness in the right, while virtue untried is proverbially feeble. Why should the exercise of the suffrage be an exception to those general principles? We firmly believe, that were it possible to place every voter out of the reach of any undue influences from without, such a state of things would tend to weaken that sturdy political independence which is the boast of Britons. Our Ballot mongers profess great tenderness for the timid and the venal—for the man whose wants or tears make him admissible to a bribe or a threat. But how do they propose to treat he mass of voters who are neither timid nor venal—the men who wish to exercise their franchise in the face of day, and have an honest pride in showing themselves superior to bribery or dictation ? They, too, must needs vote in a corner—they cannot pay a personal compliment to the candidate whom they esteem or admire—they will be unable even to escape the degrading suspicion of having voted against their principles ! This is a real hardship in the first instance—but it will be a source of moral evil afterwards. Take from the voter the stimulus of the open political conflict—the honest pride attendant on discharging his trust before the eyes of his fellow-citizens, and you make room for other and lower influences—for caprice —for pique —for envy, hatred, and malice. The spirit that ostracized ARISTIDES would find "ample room and verge enough" under the unhealthy shadow of a secret vote. We must here close our remarks. We do not profess to have exhausted the argument, but we trust we have said enough to shake the faith of any honest believer in the Ballot. With those who admire it as a weapon of destruction, it were of course in vain to argue. We can only trust that the good sense of the country will long deny them the opportunity of seeing their " devilish engin'ry " in active operation. BERNARD'S TRIAL. No one at all acquainted with the temper of British juries can have been surprised at the verdict given on Saturday last in the case of Dr. BERNARD. A State prosecution, conducted by the great law officers of the Crown, and ori ginating in political circumstances, has ever been looked upon with disfavour in this country by that class of persons from whom common juries are chosen ; and there were incidents in connection with this particular trial which tended enormously to increase that dis favour. It was supposed—and the supposition was strengthened by the ingenious suggestions of the counsel for the defence—that the prose cution of Dr. BERNARD had been undertaken at the bidding, or at least by the desire, of the French Government; and when to this consi deration was added the knowledge that grave doubts existed as to the application of the statute under which the proceedings were taktn, to the case. it is not wonderful that the twelve men who found themselves called upon to decide the question by their verdict, eagerly seized 11111 the opportunity afforded them of repudiatino the suspected foreign interference, and adding another to the many recorded instances of the fearless impartiality of the British jury -box. Let it not be supposed for a moment that we mean to suggest that the J ury i n D r. BEE NARD's case were animated by any desire to gain celebrity, or were influenced b y any other feeling than an anxious wish to do their duty according to the oath which they had taken. No one who has read the evidence could entertain any such suspicion. The de positions of sixty-two witnesses, while they abundantly proved the crime of which Oastxr and his confederates had been guilty, failed to connect the prisoner with their plans so con clusively as to exclude all doubt; anti the bold defence which was set up for him—that, al though he was engaged in a plot for a general rising in Italy. he was not privy to any design upon the life of the Emperor of the FRENCH— served to explain many circumstances which could not have been accounted for on any other hypothesis. The charge alleged against him in the indictment—that he was accessary before the fact to the murder of a man who was killed in consequence of the attempt made to assassinate the Emperor—could be sus tained only by proof that he was a party to that scheme of assassination ; unless this was made out, the Jury could not convict. As Mr. JAMES aptly said, " If I lend n man a pistol " with which to go and defend his house at " York from attack, and I afterwards hear that "on his way thither lie has shot a matt as " Leicester with it, I am in no way respon " sible for that act." The Jury applied this illustration to the case before them, and though they could have no doubt that BERNARD was to a great extent cognizant of ORSINI'S plans, they found that it was not proved that he had full knowledge of them, and so ac quitted him. But the great difficulty against which the prosecution had to contend, was the un certainty of the law in regard to the case. It was impossible to deny that if the Jury found a verdict of guilty, that verdict would, in all probability, be set aside by the Court of Appeal, on the ground that the prisoner was not within the jurisdiction of the English tribunals on that charge. Accordingly, when the entire proceedings were stigmatized by Mr. JAMES as " a mockery and a sham," " a wresting of an Act of Parliament from its original design to serve a political purpose," it was not in the power of the Attorney-General to complain of this language, and to assert that a verdict was not sought for the purpose of trying an ex periment. The susceptibilities of the Jury were wounded at the idea that they were asked to return what would, in all probability, be a nugatory verdict; and they prevented the ex periment by pronouncing an acquittal. After all, it is not perhaps of much conse quence that the fifteen judges will not now be called upon to decide the points of law raised by Dr. BERNARD'S defenders. It is probable enough that they would have held that he was not triable under the statute; but their judg ment is not necessary to point out the deficiencies of our law with respect to domiciled aliens. These deficiencies are now known, and may be remedied by a simple enactment. which, without in any degree limiting the right of asylum, will bring refugee conspirators more completely within the control of our laws, and place them on the same footing as British subjects in respect of any attempt they may make to levy war on our allies. I The chief reason why we must regret the conclusion at which the Jury arrived on this important case is, that it has led to the aban donment of all further proceedings against Dr. BERNARD. A true bill had been found against him for conspiracy, and the indictment was to have been tried in the Court of Queen's Bench; but acting on the wise old rule, wino bin rexari (Wet pro cadent cause, the Attorney- General has determined not to prosecute that indictment. The evidence would necessarily have been the same as that offered in support of the capital charge ; for although teshnical►y the offences differ in name and degree, sub stantially they are identical. Dr. BERNARD, therefore, reaps the benefit of the unwilling ness of the Jury to convict him capitally upon •videnoe which would probably have been