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

THE PRESS, APRIL 24, 1858.

treated, he listens to the false pretence, and
votes "at least for going into committee, in
order to see what can be done ?"

For our own part, we are satisfied that, in
the present position of the question, no better
course can be taken than that which Lord
DERBY indicated in his reply to last Monday's
deputation. Let a bill be passed, if possible,
first, to enable parishes, in their corporate
capacity, to commute and so dispense with
Church-rates. Let a new Ecclesiastical Com-
missioner, if needful, be appointed, specially
to superintend this matter. There are many
small parishes where the question lies in so
narrow a compass as to be susceptible of an
easy arrangement. But besides this, power
should be given to landlords, everywhere, to
take the rate upon themselves, to relieve the
suffering consciences of their Dissenting
tenants, and to substitute the owner's name
for the occupier's in the rate-book. This simple
expedient would, we are satisfied, quickly re-
move four-fifths of the existing grievance.
The agitating Dissenters, however, would
probably oppose this plan. They would say
that simple repeal is what they want, and that
they will accept of nothing less. Very well ;
then the pretext that they aro striving to bene-
fit the Church will be put an end to. It will
be made quite evident that it is not their own
relief, but the Church's injury, which is the
real object at which they aim.

We hold it, therefore, as proved that . . . . there
is uo ground for saying that the French Government ex-
ceeded their kgitinuste rights, or that the English Govern-
ment made any concession (! ) which placed Cue honour and
dignity of the country in jeopardy (!)
A great orator once said that " it was a stu-
" pid thing to knock one's head against a
" wall"; but what could be said of people who
" build up a wall for the express purpose of
" bumping their brains against it"? The
remark was made on the absurdity of Lords
GREY and GRENVILLE taking up Mr. PITT'S
dropped plan of " Catholic Emancipation ;'
and now the Edinburgh Review espouses the
condemned views of Lords PALMERSTON
CLARENDON, which led to the shipwreck of the
late Ministry.
Its attempt, also, to ride off on the fact
that " an oral reply" had been given to Count
WALEWSKT, is too ridiculous. What would
any gentleman think, it' after addressing his
equal on a personal question involving the
civilities of neighbourhood, he had received
an " oral answer " by John the butler, or Dick
the groom ?
Nations know nothing of colloquial inter-
course. They communicate politically, not
by the lips of transient officials, but by the
authorized despatches of the heads of depart-
ments. Can it be possible that any subordi-
nate in the Foreign-office is concerned in the
editorial department of the Edinburgh Review

~~

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.