THE LIBERAL PARTY AND THE BALLOT.
WE have already expressed our regret at the unfortunate universality with which Liberal candidates are pledg- ing themselves to the Ballot. It is in truth especially lament- able that at the very time when the triumph of Liberal principles is made secure with the present system of voting, slavery to a Radical tradition should have power on all sides to force a new system, which will be full of acknowledged disadvantages, though without any compensating gain. The motives which appear to influence candidates may account for and excuse, but do not wholly justify, the course which is being adopted. It is partly indifference, a feeling that when the sub- stantial victory of the Franchise has been won, the constituencies may gratify their fancy, and have secret voting if they please. The point is not worth making a stand for, individual candi- dates appear to think, when there is so much substantial har- mony between them and the constituencies they seek to repre- sent. Another, and not quite consistent motive, is the flagrant display of intimidation which Tory landlords and electioneering agents of all sorts have been making. Candidates repeat to themselves that if this thing goes on, why they must try, how- ever reluctantly, the panacea which is being pressed upon them. They have no particular faith in it themselves, but it may perhaps succeed, and it will be particularly disagreeable to their political opponents, whose predilection for intimida- tion they resent ; and thus they reconcile themselves to the pledge which they at last consent to give. We fear that Liberal candidates are preparing a great disappoint- ment for their party and their cause. When fairly tried, the system of ballot voting will be found not a matter of indifference. A valuable ingredient will be missed from the free atmosphere of our politics. The secret system will have encouraged a certain furtiveness in discussion, and given a new stimulus to social treachery and hypocrisy, but it will not have put a stop to bribery and intimidation. We shall have the old evils in new and perhaps worse forms, and we shall have the treachery and hypocrisy to boot. This and more will he found out if the Ballot is tried. Still the usual motives which are swaying candidates that way are not wholly unsound. They are at least political motives based on considerations of expediency and what is best for the welfare of the State, this being especially the case with the notion that Tory intimidation is becoming so pressing an evil that a desperate remedy must be tried. We are not sure, however, but that one of the evils of yielding to the call for the Ballot will be the diffusion of some very unsound principles, which are not a matter of indifference. Precisely at this moment, a pamphlet, by Mr. Holyoake, comes before us, advocating the Ballot on the most pernicious grounds ; and the pamphlet is being circulated in such a way that, apart from the ability and position of its writer, which would not wholly entitle it to elaborate discussion, the reasoning it contains deserves to be remarked. The pamphlet has the imprimatur of Mr. Berkeley, it was originally an address to the Council of the Reform League, and we may assume the doctrine that it teaches is sanctioned pretty widely among the friends of the ballot. It will be a bad thing to have the ballot introduced, but it will be worse if its introduction is due to the general accept- ance of such reasoning as that of the pamphleteer. Mr. Holyoake disregards almost altogether the considera- tions of political expediency. He calls his pamphlet "A New Defence of the Ballot," and he seeks to rest the electors' claim. for it on some high and inaccessible ground of right. Nay, he expressly repudiates the theory that the ballot is to be- sought mainly as a remedy against bribery and intimidation. "The ballot," he says, "would frustrate bribery—baffle inti- midation, and economize the expense of elections ; but if it made them dearer, I should reason as I do, for independence is worth all it costs." Elsewhere he says that the ballot is "the weapon of the strong, and of the strong only." The idea which he wishes to impress is that an elector's voting is purely a private affair, and being private, it should also be- secret, at his pleasure. All electors are on an equal footing, and each should concede to the other the liberty he claims for- himself. Curiously enough, Mr. Holyoake selects marriage- as an illustration of what a private affair is, although marriage in England and in most other civilized countries is not allowed to be secret, and the illustration thus tells against. himself. Farther, he makes the ballot "a condition of indi- viduality of action, and a necessary complement of enfran- chisement." He denies altogether that a vote is in any sense. a trust, and voting the discharge of a public duty—at least, he does so in a preface, though in the body of the pamphlet he drops the phrase that a man's voting is "a duty to his country and his conscience." We believe that to. state an. argument like this is to show its perniciousness. It assumes, of course, as much advocacy of the ballot does, that the im- portant thing in a political contest is the deposit of votes in the urn—not the free discussion of which the voting is only the complement, and it degrades this discussion in importance by exalting individual right at the expense of the community, and contemning the idea of political duty. Surely if a man's vote is his private affair, so are his opinions ; and if he claims to keep his vote secret, he may claim on the same ground to• refuse enlightenment on political topics. But nothing could be more contrary to the whole notion of a free community. Every good citizen owes it to himself and to his neighbours to make no secret of his political opinions, to act on others and be acted on by them in the ordinary intercourse of life. It is far more important that he should do so than that he should give a vote on a few occasions, triennially, or not so often ; for in this manner opinion, which is the real governing influence, is formed. If every man, then, ought to make a public profession of his politics, there is plainly no reason whatever for keeping secret the register of his actual votes on certain definite occasions ; and rather a reason for keeping a public register, so that stedfastness and consistency may have due. encouragement. To teach the contrary, to teach men to undervalue discussion which necessarily involves publicity, is to spread an unwholesome opinion ; and if the teaching is bad, the ballot, which will give practical lessons that way, is the more to be condemned. The ignoring of - the notion of a trust in the actual electors is an equally injurious characteristic of the doctrine. We could not but regard it as unfortunate that with the diffusion of electoral power, with the consequently diminished influence• of single votes, the idea should get abroad that this. apparently valueless thing in a political contest is a private- possession of the elector. With such ideas it will be very difficult to convince people of the sanctity of a vote as the complement and most definite expression of a man's professed opinions ; and without this notion being widely prevalent, electoral purity and political freedom are alike impossible.
While such is the main argument of Mr. Holyoake, it is buttressedby a general conception of politics which we should not like to see accepted. He seems to think that in voting an elector gives up power. "Once in seven years" —he supposes an elector to say—" I am niaster of the- situation, afterwards I am at the mercy of the Member of Parliament I elect I must obey the laws be helps. to make, or he will suspend the Habeas Corpus Act and put a sword at my throat, or fire upon me with the latest improved rifle he has made me pay for in the estimates. I may howl, but I cannot alter anything. My only security is that a time will come when I shall be master again. I shall taste of power for one supreme moment when I shall stand by the ballot-box." Now this is surely a most unreasonable account of representative government. Electors, it supposes, ought to be preternaturally suspicious-. and distrustful, as they have no security against betrayal except the ballot-box once in seven years ! The truth is, that in any community which can stand representative govern- ment, the pressure on representatives is such that wholesale betrayal is not to be reckoned on; and if it were, the ballot-
box once in seven years would not make the elector "master of the situation." The treacherous representatives who betrayed their constituents by abolishing the Habeas Corpus and firing on them with improved rifles, could easily com- plete their treachery and protect themselves by abolish- ing the ballot-box too. Besides, in England at least the representatives never act without feeling an outside force, the general unrepresented opinion of the communities which elected them, and to which, in fact, they defer. And there are agencies by which the electors at quite irregular times may become "masters of the situation." This false notion of Mr. Holyoake is a development of the absurdity that a vote is a thing apart and not an integral portion of the whole machinery of discussion and representation by which a free community carries on its affairs ; but it illustrates very well the depth of that absurdity, and fatally identifies the cause he advocates with narrowness and imperfection of political vision.
Recurring to the idea with which we started, we would ask Liberal electors and candidates whose motives in desiring the ballot are a little more reasonable, whether they are not going the wrong way to work. The Ballot is a dangerous instru- ment, and we see the kind of principles with which it is being identified. We admit as frankly as any the dangers to be guarded against,--the gross bribery and intimidation which prevail, and the corruptness of the public sentiment. But the evil must be fought directly and patiently, and not by quack remedies and Morison's pills. The corrupt sentiment is the worst evil of all, and by seeking an imaginary cure in the ballot you leave it untouched, introducing at the same time a new set of deteriorating ideas. We wish it could be fully understood how little bribery and intimidation would be diminished by the ballot so long as public sentiment is cor- rupt. Of course no briber or intimidator could be so sure in applying the screw, but there is such a thing as "payment for results." Bribees would have an unworthy reputation to maintain, and if they are profligate enough to sell their votes would be profligate enough to make the sale real and not a mere pretence, so that they would be worth buying in future. An intimidating landlord or manu- facturer, again, could easily contrive to make his subjects understand that his return was essential to their welfare, that if a certain number of their votes could turn the scale and did not, so much the worse for them. No one would know on whom the stroke was to fall, and there would be a competition in hypocrisy to avoid it. People fancy that the ruffianism of terrorists is not equal to this ; but a landlord whose political influence is at stake, or a manufacturer who wishes to become a country magnate by Tory favours, is mean enough and cruel enough as things go, and will find obsequious tools. Instead of trusting to the ballot, the only wise course is to strengthen the arm of the law against the briber and intimidator, and to cherish a public opinion which will alike invest the exercise of an elector's privilege with the sanctity of a public duty, and stigmatize bribery and intimidation as socially disgraceful.
Previous page
