The Sun.
London, England, 1857-12-31 00:00:00

AN AUSTRALIAN VIEW' OF THE BALLOT
QUESTION IN ENGLAND,

(From the Melbourne Argus.)
A favourite argument against the adoption of
secret voting in England is based ou the theory
that the suffrage is a trust, not aright or privilege,
of the individual voter. It is maintained that the
exercise of this trust, like any other trust, ought to
be always open to control. This is a dogma on
which Lord J. Russell bases much of his opposi-
tion to the ballot, and with him it is no novelty.
He has always stoutly combated the opposite
opinion as a dangerous heresy in constitutional doc-
trine. He compares the power of the electors to
the power of the executive and the power of the
judge, and insists that, according to the British
constitution, all are to be subjected to the control of
public opinion in the exercise of the powers con-
ferred upon them. But does a man vote more
conscientiously because he votes openly ?—and if
he votes according to his conscientious convictions,
how does he vote wrongly ? The comparison em-
ployed by Lord John to illustrate his meaning
proves that he does not regard all the sides of the
question. Public opinion, may indeed, prevent the
palpable abuse of the suffrage, and control the
voter who, unchecked, would vote against h.s real
opinions, from motives of interest, of hatred, or of
private friendship, just as it may prevent similar
abuses on the judicial bench. When the liberal
elector votes for the liberal candidate, and the con-
servative voter for the conservative can lidate,
public opinion cannot, and if it could, ought not,
be of any avail. If the suffrage be a trust, which
of these voters bas committed a breach of that trust ?
For whose benefit is tke trust to be exercised ?
Lord John answers, for the benefit of those
who have no voice in the representation. He con-
ceives that this theory is inapplicable iti a cons'itu-
tion under which manhood suffrage prevails. Yet
even un ler such a constitution women and minors
are unrepresented. Are their interests to be dis-
regarded, and their existence altogether ignored 1
Sarely, if the power of voting be a trust because a
certain poet of the male adult population is ex-
cluded from the enjoyment of it, it must continue
to be equally a trust while any individuals, of any
age or sex, are excluded. A Mahomedan, or an
aboriginal Australian, might consistently enough
hold the contrary opinion ; but it certainly is not
the theory of a free constitutional government.
In fact, the suffrage is in no sense a trust at all.
It is a right in the individual, to be exercised by
him as all the other rights which he possesses are to
be exercised, so long as he remains a member of a
social community, with a view to the interest of
others as well as of himself. Doubtless there is a
duty attached to it, as there is a duty attached to
the ownership of property, or to hi ,h intellectual
gifts ; but it is merely the duty of acting conscien-
tiously. One mau votes for, and auother against,
a candidate, each in his conscience believing him-
self to be right. Both have performed their duty,
both have exercised the power conferred upon them
with uprightness and honesty. Neither is justly
amenable to public censure for the manner in
which he has voted. But of two diametrically
opposite opinions one must be incorrect. If one
is beneficial to the public, the other must be,
if not injurious, at least neutral. Clearly, there-
fore, one of our supposed voters has employei his
suffrage in a way which is not beneficial, and there-
fore erroneous. To call his conduct, however, a
breach of trust is a misapplication of language. If
he is to be guided by public opinion, the turncoat
who votes always with the majority would always
be in the right, and the conscientious opponent of
a popular measure always in the wrong. In truth,
the inconsistencies and absurdities to which the
doctr'ne that the suffrage is anything like a trust
must lead are almost endless. If, on the contrary,
it is regarded in its true character of a political
right, the theory of representation becomes intelli-
gible, and what is more to our present purpose a
mein argument of the opponents of secret voting
falls to the ground.
The last ground on which Lord John Russell
rests his opposition is, the aversion of the British
public. It must be conceded thati this assumption
is based on a more solid foundaSion than his other
argumen's. A very large section, and that the
moat influential of the entire nation, feels a re-
pugnance to alter the system of open voting.
Many causes contribute to this result. John Bull's
notorious reluctance to change his habits, until
they become altogether unsuited to him, throws
difficulties and delays in the way of any constitu-
tional changes fur which there is not au imperative
necessity. The numerous class who at present ins
fluence elections, doggedly oppose a change which
threatens to destroy the foundations of th-ir
power ; when to these are added the great body-of
men who do not think at all, but are led by thenon-
sensicel claptrap that secret voting is cow4rdly and
un-English, the apparent unpopulai icy of the ballot
is sufficiently accounted for. That the popular
opinion has not yet set in steadily in its favour is
ev dent from the tone still preserved by the
Times. That unfailing index of the general
feelings of the day scoffs at the topic with cool
contempt, as an unpractic,l speculation, not fitted
to be carried out. Nevertheless, indications are not
wanting that the under current is flowing slowly, but
uninterruptedly, forward. As it has frequently
happened in English history, a political change is
being ripened outside of the walls of the House of
Commons. The people will lead their representa-
tives. Candidates who avow their predilection for
secret voting are more frequently returned than
was the case a few years back. If a man of more
than ordinary intelligence offers himself to a con-
stituency, in two cases out of three he is an advo-
cate of the ballot. Nor is the favour with which
the " unadorned eloquence" of our own clear-headed
politician, Mr. Nicholson, has been received, with-
out significance. His statements of how the system
has opersted amongst us here have not been with-
out weight with the English mind, ever most
desirous of knowing how a thing will " work." We
are not annoyed nor surprised at the contempt with
which the Commons treat the proceedings and
experienc of the colonies, so long as tbdy do not
rebel. The swell membsr of Leech's clever sketch,
who complains, with the a's- of an extremely ill-
used man, that the colonies ought t., be satisfied
when Australian won the Derby, is hardly a carica-
ture. Lord John Rus,ell and Sir George Le Nis
refer to this colony mush as a veteran sportsman
might speak of the fox hunting experiences of a
schoolboy ; but we mistake greatly if the same feel-
ing finds much favour amongst the intelligent
thinkers without the house. The science of poll ics
may be learnt equally in a small and iu a large
community, and scholars will not forget that our
most valuable lessons are derived from the experi-
ences of the petty states of Greece and of Italy, and
that the wisest of statesmen may draw profitable
knowledge from the pages of Thucydides and
Aristotle, who wrote of nations numerically as small
as our own, and with territories far less extended.

The working of the system, as developed in
France, receivei little morc attention in the de-
bate to which we have been referring. Probably
this reserve might have been dictated by motives
of prudence ; it would not be altogether con-
venient to discuss in the House of Commons so
delicate a subject as Ole internal affairs of that
country. Nevertheless accurate observers look to
the ballot as the means by which France will
eventually extricate herself from the thraldom
under which her liberties now lie oppressed.