The Press.
London, England, 1858-04-17 00:00:00

THE PRESS, APRIL 17, 1858

descent of the Ballot; handed over to the
tender mercies of FROST and FEAROUS O'CoNNoR
—to the runaway rebels of Newport and the
most sweet voices of Kennington-common !
And now, after long and vain struggles to raise
itself from deserved obscurity, it is again to be
worked by practised engineers with improved
machinery, that the world may learn how
much vitality there can be in a plausible
falsehood.

We do not fear for the result; secret
voting will never receive the sanction of
the English Legislature. And evea were
it established to-morrow, it could produce
no effects which as mere political parti-
sans we should be inclined to deprecate.
It might in some degree augment the influence
of wealth by simplifying the process of bribery
at borough elections; but it would also
strengthen the influence of hereditary rank
and landed property. On the whole, it would
leave the House of Commons pretty much
what it is. As a thoroughgoing Reformer
phrased it some sixty years since, " the milk
" throws up the cream." The Ballot can only
degrade the representation by gradually
debasing the constituencies; and were we as
indifferent to its had effects on national cha-
racter as we are fearless of its influence as a
party measure, we would waste no word upon
it, but leave its advocates to a short triumph
and a long disappointment. But before we
proceed to discuss the question of secret voting
on its proper moral and political grounds,
there are one or two preliminary topics to he
shortly disposed of. In the first place, the
general testimony of history is against it. It
has not generally taken root and thriven in the
same soil with constitutional liberty. The
Greek and Roman republics, for instance,
alike rejected it for legislative and, with un-
important exceptions, for elective purposes
And, if we wish to test its value as part of
their judicial system, we need only refer to the
terms in which it is spoken of by ARISTO-
MURES and JuvzsAr.--men far before their age
in moral and political wisdom—to see with
what utter contempt the whole machinery of
the ballot-box was regarded by honest and en-
lightened minds.
In the second place, it is alien to our English
customs, not only in the election of Members of
Parliament, but in other less momentous
matters. If a society wish to elect their presi-
dent, they vote openly. If Mr. WESTERTON and
Lord J. RUSSELL want to fight Mr. LIDDELL in
pitched vestry, they demand not a ballot, but a
poll. Publicity is the general rule, subject to the
action of which Englishmen practise the art of
self-government ; and our opponents cannot
deny that on the whole it has worked well.
There is, however, an exception on which the
Ballotmonger lays great stress, as existing in
an institution peculiarly English—we mean,
the admission into our clubs by a secret vote.
Yet, in truth, logically viewed, this exception
makes rather for than against us. The member
of a club, in giving his vote, does not profess
to be fulfilling a trust. He is simply consult-
ing his own ease and enjoyment, and acting
on grounds which he could not profess with
out sowing discord and offence broadcast. A
candidate for a club is blackballed because he
is noisy, or touchy, or fanciful—because he is a
coarse feeder, or a bad whist-player, or simply
a bore. It is necessary for the peace of
society—which forbids adding affront to dis-
appointment—that such objections should be
enforced by a secret process. But as soon as
a question of real moral responsibility arises,
as when some member of a club is charged
with disgraceful and ungentlemanly conduct,
the process changes with the occasion. A
committee of members is appointed, and they
inquire and discuss and report openly. We re-
peat, the exception, if traced to its cause,
lends no support to the views of the agitators
who quote it so exultingly. The truth is, the
real question turns on the fundamental ideas
of trust and responsibility, and their relations
to each other ; and it is upon this ground that
we propose to treat it in a future number.
Press of matter compels us to dismiss the
subject for to-day, with a friendly hint to

Messrs. BERKELEY and Co. not to be too eager
in urging the adoption of their great specific.
Success, were it possible, would deprive them
of their favourite war cry in conflict—their
most plausible excuse in defeat. Better to leave
it, as a " Yarrow unvisited " in the region of
politics a vague ideal to be cherished by
their imaginative disciples.