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

A. favourite argument against the adoption of
secret voting in England is based on the theory
that the suffrage is a trust, not a right 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 his real
opinions, from motives of interest, oehatred, 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 candidate,
public opinion cannot, and if it could, ought not,
be of any avail. If the suffrage be a trust, which
of these voters has committed a breach of that trust ?
For whose benefit is the trust to ba exercised ?
Lord John answers, for the benefit of those
who have no voice in the representation. He con-
ceives that this theory is inapplicable in a constitu-
tion under which manhood suffrage prevails. Yet
even under such a constitution women and minors
are unrepresented. Are their interests to be dis-
regarded, and their existence altogether ignored 1
Surely, if the power of voting be a trust because a
certain part 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
huld 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 intellectual
gifts ; but it is merely the duty of acting conscien-
tiously. One man votes for, and another 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 employed 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
doctrine 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 pplitical
right, the theory of representation becomes intelli-
gible, and what is more to our present purpose a
main 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 that this assumption
is based on a more solid foundation than his other
arguments. A very large section, and that the
most 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,i throws
difficulties and delays in the way of any constitu-
tional changes for which there is not an imperative
necessity. The numerous class who at prevent in-
fluence elections, doggedly oppose a change which
threatens to destroy the foundations of their
power ; when to these are added the great body of
men who do not think at all, but are led by the non-
sensical claptrap that secret voting is oowsildly and.
un-English, the apparent unpopularity of the ballot
is sufficiently accounted for. That the popular
opinion has not yet set in steadily in its favour is
evident 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 impractical speculation, not fitted
to be carried out. Nevertheless, indications are not
wanting that the nodes 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 Rouse 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 operated 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
experience of the colonies, so long as they do not
rebel. The swell member of Leech's clever sketch,
who complains, with the air of an extremely ill-
used man, that the colonies ought to be satisfied
when Australian won the Derby, is hardly a carica-
ture. Lord John Russell and Sir George Le sis
refer to this colony much 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 poli ics
may be learnt equally in a small and in 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, received little more 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 the 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.