The Sun.
London, England, 1853-01-04 00:00:00

THE BALLOT.
(Front the Daily News.)
With Sir James Graham at Carlisle, and Lord
J. Russell in London, objecting to the Ballot, and
Sir W. Molesworth and Sir A. Cockburn at
Southwark and Southampton, declaring themselves
as stoutly its supporters, the temptation to ven-
tilate a little the rationale of " open questions "
is irresistible. They are ticklish thinas these same
" open questions ' for any Ministry in which
they are tolerated. Of course this is true only of
questions of importance, and the settlement of
which is urgently required. For it is only to such
questions that one thinks of prefixing the epithet
" open." There are of course innumerable ques-
tions on which the members of any and every
Ministry must agree to differ ; but if they are of
trifling moment, or if the public mind is not en-
gaged upon them at the time, they are abstractions
that may be stowed into lumber garrets and out-
of-the-way pigeon holes. It is only of questions
that vitally affect a largo and anxious public that
it is of the slightest consequence whether colleagues
in an Administration agree upon them or not.
But when essential gain or loss to the public de-
pends upon whether some practical question is to
be settled by the Legislature in the negative or the
affirmative, it is a very ticklish matter for a Minis-
try to leave it what is technically termed an "open
question ;" that is, to agree to take different sides
on it in Parliamentary debate. The arrangement
is at times inevitably_ Themareep_ecirs,
opinion in which the balance of pro and con in the
public mind is so near equipoise on certain ques-
tions, that it is impossible to man the numerous
offices of executive government with competent
officials all of one mind about them. There is,
then, nothing left for it but toleration of open
questions. The question of Catholic Emanci-
pation, for nearly thirty years at the beginning of
the present century, was in this condition.
And it is only necessary to revert to the history
of the different Cabinets during that period, in
order to be convinced how detrimental open ques-
tions are to a Government. Even when they do
not lead to immediate dissolutions of Ministries,
they are the source of incessant tracasseries and in-
trigues within, and of distrust and half-hearted
support of adherents without.. The Roman Catho-
lic question enabled the Sidmouths, and Percivals,
and Eldons of the first five-and-twenty years of the
century to undermine, in the opinion of their Sove-
reign any of their colleagues against whom they
entertained a grudge, and the power was not spar-
ingly used. Again, according as the Ministry were
suspected of leaning a little more or a little less to
the Catholic claims, the affections of one or other
half of their party grew cool, and its support less
active. Besides, men were always prone to suspect
that men who agreed to differ on so vital a question
had no very nice or firm views of principle. Every
way the Ministry suffered, by the promotion of in-
ternal cabals, by disunion in the party upon which
they leant for support, by a general doubt of the
honesty of their intentions.
Lord Aberdeen and his colleagues may rest as-
sured that so long as the Ballot (or any other im-
portant question) remains an " open question"
among them, the disastrous consequences we have
just enumerated will hang over them. We do not
blame them for making the ballot an open ques-
tion ; they could not in the existing circumstances
of the case have acted otherwise ; they are not the
less entitled to a fair trial at the hands of the public
on their own merits, and to support against the
Derby-Disraelites on account of the demerits of the
latter. It is a sincerely friendly voice that warns
them of the result of entertaining " open ques-
tions." " Open questions" are sores which the
general strength of the body they affect requires
should be healed up as soon as possible.
It is now time to turn from the consideration of
the effects of open questions upon a Ministry to
their effects upon the solution of those questions
themselves. There can be no doubt that ultimately
the leaving of any question "open" among the
members of a Ministry is a step that invariably
precedes its solution in favour of the innovating
side. The natural and necessary tendency of all
Cabinets is to resist any innovation when proposed
for the first time. That this resistance is so far
abated as to allow a portion—even though a mino-
rity—of the Ministers in Parliament to support any
proposed innovation, is a mark that it has made a
progress in public opinion that deters Ministers
from declaring themselves hostile to it as a body.
This hesitation, this irresolution, is like the loosen-
ing of the particles of a dam as the water it is in-
tended to exclude rises. Once this loosing begins,
it is only a question of how long the water will take
to complete the disintegration that has been begun,
and sweep away the dam before it.
Every sincere and earnest advocate of the Ballot
must, therefore, hail its admission to the list of
" open questions " as an earnest that it will ulti-

maiely lie carried. Making the Ballot an " open
question," is an admission on the part of a Minis-
try three-fourths of whom and more are professed
opponents of the Ballot, that resistance to secret
voting is not a matter of life and death for the con-
stitution. It is an admission on their part that
the arguments in favour of the Ballot are entitled
to dispassionate consideration ; that possibly the
advocates of the Ballot may be in the right. The
supporters of vote by Ballot remain as unconvinced
as ever of the justice of their opinion ;—its oppo-
nents have begun to waver and doubt whether it
is really unjust "or inexpedient. Whenever earnest,
intimate conviction comes to be opposed to scepti-
cism, the latter must give way in the long run.
But legislative measures cannot be promoted but
by active advocacy. The Ballot must be pushed
by somebody ; it cannot work its way itself. Now
upon whom does the duty of working an " open
question" devolve. Not upon Ministers. Their
relation to "open questions" is a relation of neu-
trality. When such questions are raised each
Minister may take what side he pleases. But no
part of a Ministry—not even a majority—is en-
titled to originate a measure for settling the ques-
tion. That would be throwing the weight of
Government countenance and influence into one or
other scale, after agreeing to abstain from doing so.
It is by the non-official supporters of the Ballot in
Parliament or out of doors, that the initiative
must be taken as long as it continues an open
question. They may rest assured that it will form
no part of any Ministerial Reform Bill ; they must
he prepared to move or have it moved as an
addition—or " rider," to any Ministerial Reform
Bill that may be brought forward. They must be
on the alert, that the neutrality professed by
Ministers on this question is strictly and faithfully
observed. It is not enough that the anti-Ballot
Ministers allow their colleagues to vote against
them—they must abstain from all canvassing of
constituencies that may bring a hostile pressure to
bear on those who have already made up their
minds to vote for the Ballot, or are hesitating on
the verge of conversion.
With fair play to public opinion, the number of
supporters of the Ballot in the Ministry may soon be
increased. Sir A. Cockburn at Southampton reck-
oned
up only four who are committed to, or sincere
in their advocacy of, it. But others are announcing

themselves open to conviction. Sir James Graham's
only reason for opposing the Ballot is that he is not
convinced it would have the effects ascribed to it.
Once Sir James was not convinced that the corn
law should be totally abolished, but as soon as con-
viction flashed upon him he aided in bringing
about its repeal. The time is coining when he will
be convinced of the expediency of vote by Ballot
also.

The truth is, that the members of the Reform
Bill Cabinet of 1830 have not always been opposed
to the Ballot. Lord John Russell has told us that
the Ballot was a proviso in one of the first drafts of
the Reform Bill. Such of our present Ministers as
were members of the Reform Bill Ministry may
change on this subject, as they have changed once
already ; they may return to their first love. It is
for the sincere and earnest advocates of the Ballot,
at this favourable crisis to be on the alert, to turn
to the best account every favourable moment and
circumstance.

FEMALE EMIGRATION.
( From the Morning Chronicle.)

It is now more than three years ago that Mr. Sid-
ney Herbert originated the fund for promoting
female emigration. The letters of our special cor-
respondent had revealed the enormous amount of
misery and vice to which the London needlewomen
were exposed, and the institution of that fund was
among the earliest resultsof the disclosures referred
to. More than a thousand young women of good
character have already been sent to Australia at the
expense of this charity. On more than one occa-
sion we have called the attention of the public to
the benefits conferred on these emigrant girls ; and
very interesting letters from some of them were
published in our last Saturday's impression. They
have exchanged penury and imminent ruin in the