As to the other great principle laid down by the
Arbi- bauchery than the old public elections, but how much trators, that a neutral's " due diligence " in preventing the of this is due to the abolition of nomination-days, with building and escape of war-vessels intended for a belligerent their licensed orgies, and how much to the Ballot, seems at " ought to be exercised in exact proportion to the risks to present exceedingly questionable. There can be no doubt but which either of the belligerents may be exposed for a failure that at Preston the Conservatives contrived to have an elec- to fulfil the obligations of neutrality on their part," we feel tion as full of those little electric shocks which result from the same kind of embarrassment as several of our contem- the frequent display of party returns of the state of the poll, poraries. If you are to measure due diligence ' only by the as ever were the old elections ; nor is it easy to see how the result, without regard either to what events it was reasonable mere secrecy attaching to the authentic Ballot-papers, except to anticipate, or what you might reasonably be expected to do, so far as it discouraged the expenditure of party money on it might surely be maintained that it would have been refreshments and beer, should have had much to do with the nothing more than due diligence ' in the United States to greater order and quiet of the day. Indeed, the Tory papers have kept the whole Canadian border lined with troops intended very candidly boasted that the Ballot had not diminished the to prevent the Fenian raids. To measure due diligence ' resources of corruption at all. " We do not believe for a solely by the risks to the suffering belligerent is often to moment," says the Standard, "that it [the Ballot] will render measure by what the neutral has no possibility of knowing. bribery or intimidation impossible, or put a check upon frau- The Alabama might, by some mischance, have destroyed a dulent voting. On the contrary, we see very little reason to great part of New York ; should we, therefore, have had to doubt that in all respects it will provide facilities both for pay for the rebuilding of New York, without any relation to violating the law and evading detection and punishment. For the fact that it is obviously the duty of the United States instance, there are no means whatever for preventing the to guard against such surprises ? The rale of due diligence,' wholesale system of bribery known as paying for results,' as laid down by the Arbitrators, is unintelligible and abso- by which the body of voters holding the balance of power lately inapplicable to the emergencies of the future. between Liberals and Conservatives will be enabled to sell
But, on the whole, both England and America have every itself to the highest bidder. Against these drawbacks we are right to be thankful for the issue of the Arbitration. Nor can asked in fairness to accredit the Ballot Act with having done we agree with M. John Lemoinne, the'able editor of the Debats, away with rowdyism and violence, and having made elections that this first success of a great international arbitration peaceful and orderly. We admit it, but," &c. Now, we being solely due to the fact that neither England nor the must remark on that, that the new orderliness of elections will United States wished to quarrel, the pacific result is an pretty certainly not last, if the Standard's first inference is accident without meaning for the world at large. No just, and bribery and intimidation on the large scale may still doubt it would be absurd to suppose that because we have be successfully pursued. We do not say with the Standard settled this little difference with our American cousins, and that they may, but we do say that the new quietude at Ponte- agreed to pay three millions odd sterling rather than fract and Preston was, as far as any reasonable mind can see, let it cause bad blood between us, therefore France wholly due (1) to the abolition of nomination-days, which and Germany will settle the difference about Alsace and Lor- has nothing to do with the Ballot, and (2) to the general raine in the same fashion, and the reign of everlasting peace impression that intimidation, bribery, and treating would be be proclaimed. We are perfectly aware of the difference be- useless under the new law. If the Conservatives have shown, tween a bitter national fend and a vexatious national mis- as they claim to have shown, that this is not so, that the state understanding, and do not at all believe that quarrels of the of the poll can be quite sufficiently well known from hour former kind will be settled in our day,—or in any day to hour to render the unlawful procuring of votes in which there is n9 strong military force behind inter- worth while, — that there are methods by which the national tribunals,—by arbitration. But not the less will money's worth can be received for the money in spite the example of England and America make a profound of the secrecy of individual votes, and finally, as seems impression on the world. It will no longer be thought probable from a letter in Thursday's Times, that " the dishonourable to refer secondary disagreements, not yet illiterate voter" may be bribed after the old fashion, and his grown to the full dimensions of a bitter quarrel, to vote publicly secured for the bribing party,—then we main- a fair arbitration. The respect for arbitration will gain tain that there is absolutely no reason to suppose that the by the happy results of this great negotiation, and little by quiet and order of the day will outlast the illusion as to the little we may hope to see international differences adjusted uselessness of the old illicit practices. Let there be once with more equity and less outpouring of blood. The first negotiations set on foot for "paying by results," or in any other step is always the most difficult. The knowledge that Eng- way for obtaining voters' support, and we shall in all land has deliberately paid more than three millions sterling probability have all the violence and excitement back again. as damages in order to settle a difference in which she had Hence even as to the new mode of taking votes, we maintain strenuously maintained that she was not in fault, will be a that the new experiments are quite indecisive. They show great encouragement to large States accused of wrong to waive that the new method will be far more orderly and decent, if fanciful considerations of honour for a substantial gain of the impression as to the hopelessness of illicit practices sur- equity, and to small States to act with that temper and con- vives the complete mastery of the method. But if not,—aa sideration which may gain from an impartial Court a judg- our Conservative contemporary maintains,—then there is no meat in their favour. It is the arrogance of great countries reason to look for the permanence of the new order and in international quarrels, and the hopelessness of small coun- decency. Negotiations for buying the unprincipled electors tries, which together produce so many dangerous imbroglios. who boast that they can turn the scale of parties and for secur-
ing the illiterates, will be commenced with offers of beer and concluded in scenes of riot. The substantial success of the PRESTON AND PONTEFRACT. secret method is a condition of its formal success. It will not these mischievous agencies, and therefore we have had quiet elections. If when the novelty wears off, the discouragement wears off, we feel no doubt that the quiet and order will also wear off, and if not, not.
Hence the really great question is as to the substantial political efficacy of the Ballot, upon which the maintenance of the improvement in the form of election must certainly depend. Have we any sufficient reason for saying that secrecy has been effectually defeated by the Conservative device of giving all the known Conservatives party cards which the elector returns into a Conservative agent's hands after leaving the poll ? At Preston this was done with marvellous success, so that the Conservative return issued half an hour after the close of the poll differed from the official return by only nine votes. If this precedent can be ordinarily followed, unquestionably the venal electors can learn exactly how much their votes are likely to be needed by both parties, can stand out for a price, and if they can trust each other so far as to agree to pay- ment by results,' can throw the election into confusion in the old fashion. It is highly probable that at Preston there were a good many of these interested abstainers who would have voted if there had been a sufficient consideration for voting. Mr. Holker told his friends that there were 1,300 fewer electors on the register yesterday week than there were in 1868, and that this accounted for the diminished Conservative majority. Strictly speaking, that is not accurate. Both the majority and the total vote were diminished decidedly more in propor- tion than the number of electors on the register, and the total vote much more. Indeed, while the total diminution of elec- tors on the register is said to be 1,300, the vote on the Tory side alone was diminished by the full number of the deficiency on the register (from 5,803 to 4,542), while the Liberal vote was also diminished from 4,741 to 3,824, or in a somewhat less proportion), showing that the total vote was diminished by 2,178 votes, nearly 70 per cent. more than the diminution of the electorate. It is quite likely that amongst these new abstainers were quite enough to have turned the fate of an election, if they had been illiterates accessible to bribery, or if not illiterates, willing to accept the suggested method of pay- ment by results. We were told before the election took place that a considerable number of the electors avowed that they would not vote at all except " on the old terms," i.e., corrupt terms. It seems to us, therefore, by no means clear that in a future election, if secrecy be evaded as it was in this, some more or less successful effort may not be made to tamper with the abstainers of last week.
But is it certain that at an ordinary election secrecy can be evaded, as it was at Preston ? By no means certain. It is obvious that a single election gives great facilities for such an organisation as that of yesterday week, which would not be given by a general election when two members had to be elected. The split votes which always occur at such an elec- tion would probably throw this system into confusion. You could not easily provide every Conservative with two cards, one for use in case he voted the solid Conservative ticket and one in case he split his vote ; or if you did, there would be pretty sure to be confusion and uncertainty. Then, again, Preston is very likely not a typical place as regards the willingness even of Conservative voters to fall into such a scheme as that adopted last week. The refusal of even a few hundred Conservative voters to accept and give up tickets showing their votes, would have disorganised the whole plan, and there are certainly many places where a good number of Conservatives would wish to avail themselves of the protection of secrecy. For these reasons we cannot hold that the Preston experiment is at all final evidence of the success with which the secret system may, in ordinary cases, be defeated.
The only definite result of the Preston election is so far satisfactory, that at Preston the Ballot did not appear to have been needed for the protection of the voter,—the result being only a slight difference in favour of the Liberal candidate, as compared with the general election of 1868. And so far as the figures at Pontefract are understood, the same inference may be drawn,—the increase of Mr. Childers' majority from 13 to 80 being no doubt due to the abstention of Conservatives who did not approve of the contest. Nothing could be more satisfactory than to have the needless- ness of the Ballot Act demonstrated by similar results all over the country ; but it would be childish to argue from the cases of Pontefract and Preston to any inference that such will be the general result. However, we may sur- mise with some confidence that, on the whole, the Ballot will, if it succeed in producing real secrecy, diminish greatly the
total votes given ; and if it does not, it will not be very likely to maintain, by any means to the full, the excellent results of decency and order which it has at present yielded. What effect, if any, it will have on the balance of parties remains to be seen, and can only be seen when we have had the Ballot tested in the counties and in Ireland. As yet we have no reason to expect a sensational result in any direction, but we have still to ascertain two very important questions,—whether secrecy can be effectually maintained ; and next, whether, if it can, it will prove to have been really needed for the pro- tection of any substantial number of electors.
Previous page
