The Sun.
London, England, 1871-02-21 00:00:00

OUR COTEMPORARIES—This Morning

THE fiAttoT PILL

The Times says :—That respect fortradition which Eng-
lishmen exhibit under all circumstances was duly honoured
last night by Her Majesty's Ministers. Mr. Forster
brought in a Ballot Bill. What a thrill of satisfac-
tion the good Reformers who did so much
useful work forty years ago would have felt could
they have seen that day l They have most of them
gone to their rest. Only a small section of the part)"
hail the Government measure with unqualified satisfac-
tion. They belong to the order of men whose mission it
is to take up knowledge at the point at which their fathers
left it, and never to advance beyond it. They are,
indeed, worthy persons, inheriting good principles,
but Possessing little or no power of assimilating new
ideas, doomed to be bewildered as years flow on
by proposals strange to their youth, and always to
be flouted by the younger' generations that rise and push
them into the background. When there is no heart put
into work it is pretty sure to be indifferently done. It is
iMpossible to pay any attention to the Ballot Bill without
seeing haw earalessly many questions have been considered
which it necessarily raises. With a strict ballot it is
impossible to know limn nn election is going until the
close, when it may often appear that a party having the
majority has rim too many candidates, and the minority
have put their man at the head of the poll. The
remedy for such a mischance adopted in France and
elsewhere is to require a second ballot when the
candidate heading the list does not obtain an
absolute majority of the votes recorded ; but the
Government do not appear to have foreseen
this difficulty. The most signal proof of the (Bo-
crepancy between the real and the professed feeling
on the subject of the bill is, however, to be found in a
review of its history. When the new Parliament met
a Select Committee was appointed, with a member of the
Cabinet as its chairman, to report on the Ballot and other
reforms in electoral machinery. The Committee, of
course, reported in favour of the Ballot : but the chair-
man, acting, it must be presumed, in harmony with the
viewsof the Ministry, took care to go no further, and gave
his vote in favour of retaining Nomination Days, against
throwing necessary expenses on the rates, and generally
against any alteration other than which was by a foregone
conclusion agreed upon. Bit by bit it has: been confessed
that it was impossible to stop short ; and if the' Ballot Bill
should perish amid the Massacre of the Innocents for two
or three sessions yet to come, we should at the end secure
something like a thorough attempt to consider the col-
lateral issues it raises.
The Daily News remarks :—The Bill goes far beyond
the limping measure of last year, and deals with the
whole of our election machinery in a wider and more
liberal sense than the Parliamentary Elections Committee
had ventured to recommend. It starts by including
Parliamentaryit
s
scope. and Municipal Elections within
scope. It applies to these elections not only
the Ballot, but a Ballot which is reallyln-
violable, and the proposal which is associated
with the name of Professor Fawcett, by which
the legal expenses of elections are charged on the con-
stituencies. It abolishes the old and exploded system of
nominations, and sweeps away with it the evil custom of
a public declaration of the poll. These three points are the
main features of the bill, and are exactly those which have
constituted the demand of the advanced section of the
Liberal party. It is peculiarly satisfactory that in this
measure—the most important political measure of the
session—the Government should have resolved to be
thoroughly faithful to the best traditions of the Liberal
party. The argument for it has long since been admitted
to be irresistable, and the only reason why it was not
enacted long ago is the fear of local and national political
leaders to trust the people. When the people were fully
enfranchised, it became evident that the system of open
voting, with its openness to every corrupt and illegitimate
influence, must be superseded by a protected vote. This
protection, so long demanded and so long denied, is at
length to be given. The Government Ballot Bill will be
the new charterof the freedom, thequietude, and the purity
of popular elections. Mr. Forster's Ballot is a real Ballot.
As Mr. Leatham said, the Government have faced
the difficulty of providing for a scrutiny by simply abolish-
ing scrutiny altogether. There are some omissions in the
bill, which we hope will be supplied in committee. We
regret that the Government has not dealt with canvassing
and agency. Sir Henry Hoare has announced that he
will move to insert a clause abolishing paid canvassers ;
and Mr. Forster expressed himself as glad to know that
the question would be discussed. The bill is an admirable
one, so far as it goes ; and it goes very far, and it can
easily be made a perfect measure for ensuring freedom and
purity of election. •

The Telegraph observes :—Last night's debate in the
'House of Commons on the clauses of the University Tests
Bill was made memorable by two divisions, in which the
Government found itself opposed to a majority of its own
supporters, winning only by the aid of Tcry votes. Mr,
Stevenson proposed that the degrees in Divinity, as well
as those in Law and Medicine, should be thrown
open to all who could pass the requisite
examination. Mr. Fawcett,, who is invariably
the " Reddest" of the " Reds," moved that all
the headships of houses, all the fellowships, and the pro-
fessorships might be held by laymen. At present the
heads of houses must be in holy orders ; so must the pro-
fessors of divinity ; and so must the majority of the fel-
lows at Cambridge, and a large proportion at Oxford.
It would be futile to underrate the importance of
decisions in which Conservative aid alone saved
the Government from conspicuous defeat. The Bill
must be passed this year. But it would inevitably
be rejected by the House of Lords if it contained the
sweeping and novel provisions demanded by Mr.
Stevenson and Mr. Fawcett. Nay, those provisions
would raise such a storm in the universities and amid the
ranks of the clergy that, if they were pressed, the passing
of the bill might be delayed for half-a-dozen years,
or at least until after the next general election.
The Government Bill is not a measure of finality
There is nothing to hinder Mr. Stevenson and his
friends from trying to amend it next year, or pressing the
claims of Liberalism until they overcome the inertia of the
Peers. Last night they were guilty of bad strategy. Mr.
Fawcett's motion is more open to question. Strictly in-
terpreted, it would permit the theological chairs to be
held by laymen. Now, unless the House of Commons be
prepared to let laymen preach from the pulpits of
the Church, and teach whatever doctrine may enter
into their heads, it cannot logically permit lay, and
therefore unfettered, professors to fill the chairs of
Divinity. So far the motion strikes at the root of the
system on which the Church of England is regulated.
That there must be a great change in the direction indi-
cated by Mr. Fawcett admits of no doubt. The point at
issue is only a question of time. The reform cannot be
executed at present, for the simple reason that any bill
which proposed such a reform would inevitably be rejected
by the Peers ; and the country cannot afford to wait longer
for a measure to make the universities national in fact as
well as in name.