THE PROSPECT OF MODIFICATIONS IN THE BALLOT BILL.
THE Ballot Bill is out of its perils in the House of Commons at last,—its third reading carried by a majority of 58,—and we agree in the estimate formed by Mr. Forster of its prospects in the Lords, though we feel little satisfaction in a result which will in our belief do more to diminish the freshness of public opinion and the manliness of political duty, than it can do,---though we hope it may do much,— to protect the poor from the temptation of bribery and from intimidation. Mr. Forster was quite right in pointing to Mr. Disraeli's significant silence on the Ballot in his great speech at Manchester as indicating a disposition to let the Ballot pass. And the same omen maybe drawn from Mr. Disraeli's leaving the solemnity of a final speech against it to Sir Stafford Northcote on Thursday night. Now, we all know that when Mr. Disraeli wishes to let a measure, against which he is in principle pledged, slip past the Upper House, he has a knack of carrying his wish into effect. We are strongly dis- posed to expect, therefore, that the Ballot will pass the Upper House this Session, and the only reasonable question is as to whether it will pass in a weaker form than at present, or whether secrecy shall be maintained at least as strictly as it is now.
Now, we are prepared to maintain that,—we will not say Conservatives such as constitute the majority of the House of Lords, but—all Liberals like ourselves, who contend strongly for open voting as the higher and better system of the two, ought to do all in their power to prevent the relaxation of any pro- vision still remaining to secure secrecy, if the Ballot is to be carried at all. There are, we hold, greatly prepbn- derant advantages in compulsory publicity over compulsory . secrecy; but if there is to be secrecy at all, compulsory secrecy is better on every account than optional secrecy. Every effort should be strained to make the secrecy of the vote, as far as producible evidence is concerned, practically final. Our contemporary the Economist pointed out last week
in a very able paper, the great danger of falling between the two stools, and leaving publicity open to the only persons for whom secrecy is really advantageous,—the timid tenant who wishes above all things to be above suspicion of voting against his landlord, and the greedy elector who wishes to be paid, and knows he can't be paid if he does not do everything in his power to convince the agent who pays him that he votes straight. Our contemporary pointed out very clearly that with neither of these persons will the penalties for "inducing" them to declare their vote, be needful at all. The anxious timidity of the one and the anxious corruptibility of
the other might make the procedure of displaying the vote,—
now that Mr. Leatham's summary penalty for so doing is rejected,—quite spontaneous. But our contemporary over- looked the clause insisted on by Mr. Forster in his
reply on Thursday night, introduced into the first sche- dule of the 25th subsection, directing the voter " to
fold his paper up so as to conceal his vote," and to "put his ballot paper, so folded up, into the ballot- box." "Any transgression of this clause," Mr. Foster pointed out, would be "an infringement of an Act of Parliament, and any offenders in this respect would be guilty of a misdemeanour." It is true, he added, that it was hardly probable an action would, and he did not think it desirable that it should, be rIbrought, "except in case of a determined endeavour to defeat Gr the object of the law ; but as the law at present stood, such a determined endeavour could be met." Now this is very im- portant, as there is always a very great dislike among English- men to break deliberately any law, and it will be quite possible, therefore, to create a strong public opinion in favour of strict adherence to it. We submit that, if not Conservatives, at least those Liberals who, like ourselves, think public voting far the higher system of the two, are bound to do all in their power to make the absolute suppression of all evidence as to how votes are given the rule so long as the Ballot lasts, and that any attempt in the House of Lords to whittle away compulsory into optional secrecy, ought to be resisted steadily, even by honest Liberal opponents of the Ballot.
We say by honest Liberal opponents of the Ballot, because we do not deny that those who oppose the Ballot in the mere interest of the landowner, might attain their purpose by mak- ing publicity optional quite as well as by making it compulsory. We admit, with the Economist, that it would be just those for whom the protection of secrecy is most required who would be too timid to avail themselves of it, and that so the influence of the landowner might in these cases defeat the secrecy of the voting, and therefore also determine the vote. But for Liberals, who dislike the Ballot chiefly for its great effect in undermining the manliness of political feeling and diminishing the influence of public opinion on electors, it would be mad- ness to throw away the one compensating advantage,—a real protection to the timid and humble voter. And this will be thrown away unless we make it absolutely illegal for the voter to give evidence of his vote, and so determine the practice in favour of secrecy. It is impossible to strike more effectually at that conception of a vote which makes it a great public responsibility, than even optional secrecy strikes ; but it is possible to lose the equivalent for this great sacrifice ; and we shall lose this if thei House of Lords be permitted to weaken in any way the absolute illegality of showing the ballot-paper after it is filled up. If we are to pay the price, let us at least get the article. Mr, Justice Keogh, who thinks that "no steadier, no safer, no more legitimate influence than that of a landlord over his tenant could be used," may probably prefer optional to compulsory secrecy. But true Liberals can- not do so. To them the whole remaining question mast be, "Shall we have the evils of both the open and the secret system, and the advantages of neither, or shall we have at least all the advantages (with the evils) of the secret system ?" We can conceive of but one reply. And therefore we main- tain that the one point on which Liberals should now con- centrate their efforts, is to prevent the House of Lords clipping down the legal secrecy of the vote into mere optional secrecy, and to strengthen the Liberals of the House of Commons in their resolve to reject absolutely—even though it should involve the loss of the Bill, which we do not believe it would,—any amendment conceived from that point of view.
Nay, we venture to think that all true Conservatives in the higher sense of the term, all who value the power given by land and wealth less than the power of great principles, will concur with us in preferring the absolute suppression of all evidence as to the vote, to any optional publicity ? For true Conservatives must and do think that their own principles have a fascination even for the poor, far greater than the vulgar influence of property and wealth, and that that fasci- nation is oftener counteracted by a vulgar public opinion, than it is strengthened by what they think legitimate influence.' Now, optional publicity will work not merely for the landowner and for the influence of wealth. It will work still more power-
fully for the influence of Trades' Unions, and the influence of esprit de corps. Once let the practice of optional publicity be
established, and it would be used much more efficiently, and on
a larger scale, by organisations like the Trade Societies, than it ever could be by landlords. It is always a safe principle to try an
experiment fairly, if you try it at all. To piece on one system to another quite different in intention, is pretty sure to produce many unexpected mischiefs. As we are to try the power of unalloyed individual responsibility in determining votes, let us try it honestly, and compare fully the advantages it promises us and is capable of giving, with the disadvantages which it cannot but entail. We are sure that every sound Liberal, we believe that every really wise Conservative, will desire to see the legal obligation of secrecy strengthened rather than weakened, in the passage of the Ballot Bill through the House of Lords.
Previous page
