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 traffickers in
votes, sellers of their suffrages—men who wish
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