The Sun.
London, England, 1860-01-24 00:00:00

111 E SUN, )40141)0N, TUESDAY EVENING, JANITAnY 24, 1861

THE BALLOT.

The following letter has been addressed by the Hon. W
F. Campbell, member for Harwich, to the Provost of Jed-
burgh, containing some new suggestions with reference to
the question of the Ballot.
TO THE PROVOST OP JEDBL'ROH.
Sir,--Your high position in the North, and the local tiee
between your borough and my family, make me anxious to
submit to you a question which concerns every first magis-
trate and town councillor throughout the country.
However great the apathy on organic change, when the
Government of the day propose to alter the Reform Act,
the long agitated subject of the Ballot cannot be passed over;
as no measure which excludes it altogether can be re-
garded as a final ono; as a large majority of Liberals are
pledged to its support ; as it is a change designed to in-
crease the power of those who vote at present, while
nearly all the other changes yet discussed are calculated
(for good or else for evil) to take that power away.
If you reflect on the position of the Ballot as a ques-
tion, you will not, I think, fail to discover a balance of
argument on the one side of authority and influence
upon the other.
On the one side it is contended that bribery is by far the
most established and alarming blot of the Reform Act ;
that, under different forms, it equally prevails in small and
large constituences ; that no remedy xcept vote by ballot
has been left untried; that none has been of service ; and
that, as a poorer class of voters is created, unless new
agencies control it, such bribery is certain to extend. It is
further argued on this subject that between a ten-pound
criterion and household suffrage, no resting place is pos-
sible ; that under household suffrage the great mass of
voters would be dependent in their circumstances, however
just in their opinions and their views ; that to impose upon
them the necessity of voting openly for candidates would,
in point of fact, be arming station, property, and capital
with power they hare not yet acquired to influence
elections. The ordipary case in favour of the Ballot
was well known to the world before 1832—has
since been frequently enforced by Mr. Grote, Sir
William Molesworth, and Lord - Macaulay; has
gained strength at every general election ; so that if it
makes no kind of progress now, its defoat would appear to
be irrevocable. On the other hand, besides the united body
of Conservatives and the majority of landowners, the most
accomplished journalists and influential Statesmen of the
day, oppose the general adoption of the Ballot, prefering
changes more extensive in their scope, as the alternative.
It is under these circumstances that I venture to invite
you to consider an adjustment of a question in which some
compromise appears to be essential.
It is not now for the first time that the principle of grant-
ing to constituencies the option of voting secretly or openly
in Parliamentary elections has been mooted. As yet no
method has been indicated in which the application of the
principle is feasible. The option conceded to the body of
the electors without determining whether this previous
question should be decided by secret or open votes. And
hhre the difficulty is insuperable.
That within constituencies there aro better means of
judging in which form they can most effectually discharge
their duty to the public than there are beyond them, is a
point which, in the abstract, you would not be inclined to
contest.

The application of the principle which I respectfully sub-
mit to you is, that the power of determining by which
method an election should proceed be vested in the first ma-
gistrate and town council of each borough which sends
members, and in which town councillors aro chosen by the
rate-payers. Before the town council the question of con •
ducting a Parliamentary election secretly or openly would
come in the same way as any other business of the moment.
Although you may pause before assenting to a novel pro-
position of this character, it will, I trust, occur to you as
one which neither party is committed to oppose.
In dealing with a recent question the Tory party gave
the :House of Commons a discretionary power to admit
Jews or to exclude them, with a certainty that the power
would be exercised in the direction which they feared,
and not in that which they approved, while for
many years the general admission of the Jews had been
resisted by them. Except as to the certainty al-
luded to, the cases are analogous. The shelter of the pre-
cedent belongs is all who shared in that arrangement, in-
cluding nearly every opponent of the Ballot. As regards
those who are prepared to sanction its general adoption by
a compulsory law, but who have (not any prospect of
obtaining it, they are not in any manner pledged against
a scheme which must partially establish the kind of voting
they desire.

The practical effect of such a measure is what you
would wish at first to ascertain. As far as I can judge,
where Liberal opinions prevail in a town council the Ballot
would be frequently adopted ; where Conservative opinions
prevailed in a town council it would be more frequently
renounced. In some boroughs, therefore, the change
would be resorted to. In others, Parliamentary elections
would go on as they do. If the operation on the
Ballot were found such as many hope, its gradual and
general adoption would be certain. If it were found such
as enlightened opponents fear, the town councils who had
tried it would recede from it. Can you desire more than
some machinery by which the eventual triumph or defeat
of a popular opinion would depend upon its truth, and by
which, if nothing could be gained, nothing would be
hazarded?

Should any general opinion be formed amongst the
provosts, mayors, and town councillors of boroughs in
favour of the compromise adverted to, you will admit, at
least, that no Government could easily withhold it. If
petitions for the Ballot came from every constituency, a
Minister might still deny the policy of granting it,
If petitions for discretionary power on the question came
from every town council, a Minister, however rash, would
hesitate before disputing the capacity of such local bodies to
decide the best form of voting in the boroughs of which
they managed the affairs. The result is that the concur-
rence of town councillors would secure the measure I have
brought under your notice, and that as soon as it engages
their attention its fate depends on them alone.
It is true, however, that what is undeniable in principle
may often lead to inconvenience in its practical effect. The
local obligations of town councils may be in the way of
their deciding freely ou the mode of conducting Par-
liamentary elections. Without a knowledge of their
feelings the State would not be justified in adding
new responsibility to functionaries whose duties were
not light before. It would be impossible, or at least pre-
sumptuous, for any one to raise the question in the House
of Commons, without ascertaining the opinion of corpora-
tions on its tendency.
Unless, however, such a plan strikes you as wholly inad-
missible, I shall bring it before the first magistrates of
other towns, besides that over which you have so long and
so impartially presided.—l am, sir, your faithful servant,
London, Jan. 18, 1860. Wm. F. CAMPBELL.

711.18 DA rs MARKETS.